tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58934795443247653912024-03-19T00:01:54.539-04:00Brookline PerspectiveBrookline Perspective offers reflections on community issues from an urban planning perspective with the hope of generating dialogue, inquiry and positive change.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-85374498650643614842013-03-22T18:49:00.000-04:002013-03-22T18:52:27.904-04:00Community by Design: The Olmsted Firm and the Development of Brookline, MA<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz5VWqYXm5y0ViE8iWy0fQWQWToA49v8hDsw3aP39nPXgPAU0bnbk3TIg21aDE7OTgvCRhKIt8KStnNBNEwlEJN5snxH9N3GHvPspfp21HIw4FBu9BiF8YQH3wTuZtLl7-F1AX7sg0JU1w/s1600/Community-by-Design-Web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz5VWqYXm5y0ViE8iWy0fQWQWToA49v8hDsw3aP39nPXgPAU0bnbk3TIg21aDE7OTgvCRhKIt8KStnNBNEwlEJN5snxH9N3GHvPspfp21HIw4FBu9BiF8YQH3wTuZtLl7-F1AX7sg0JU1w/s1600/Community-by-Design-Web.jpg" height="320" width="228" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Cover Photo by Jack E. Boucher. Library of Congress</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I suspect there will be a great deal of interest in this new book, <i>Community by Design: The Olmsted Firm and The Development of Brookline, Massachusetts,</i> by Keith Morgan, Elizabeth Hope Cushing and Roger Reed. Published by the Library of American Landscape History, University of Massachusetts Press. Anyone interested in understanding why Brookline looks the way it does will find plenty of fodder here. Olmsted enthusiasts will get an in-depth glimpse into the workings of the firm with plenty of real world examples of their design philosophy; first delineated in plan form and then realized in our neighborhoods. Chock full of details (with hundreds of reproduced photos and plans) and meticulously researched, the book exposes the multiple webs of influence; wealth, social hierarchy, design genius and high-minded ideals that came together to guide the development of Brookline at a time when booming population and streetcars brought rapid change. The authors trace the relationships among the leading trend-setters in architecture, municipal governance, landscape design, engineering and horticulture as they converge in Brookline at the turn of the 19th century, a time when the professions of landscape architecture and urban planning were being born by these very individuals. The book sets these events into a broader context, describing the forces that drew these taste-makers to Brookline in the first place and the process by which they came to see their home as a template for an ideal residential setting. Henry Hobson Richardson, Charles Sprague Sargent, Charles Eliot, Arthur Shurcliff, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., John Charles Olmsted, Guy Lowell, J. Randolph Coolidge and Robert Swain Peabody are some of the design and horticulture luminaries that circulated within the elder Olmsted's sphere.</div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzAMmT4CQB1C7kX4HEh-SIEEXce4MogDgQT91Bo2tao2NtsrsLKXcOPfHTIkW6upcUiP9FjnqHphiYx6-krvCEBZNIn5yG5u8plu05I5p7zQP3D8h8ptMf5JxxIuqGj6b2DVKNIncOdaxr/s1600/Charles+Eliot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzAMmT4CQB1C7kX4HEh-SIEEXce4MogDgQT91Bo2tao2NtsrsLKXcOPfHTIkW6upcUiP9FjnqHphiYx6-krvCEBZNIn5yG5u8plu05I5p7zQP3D8h8ptMf5JxxIuqGj6b2DVKNIncOdaxr/s1600/Charles+Eliot.jpg" height="320" width="293" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Charles Eliot 1882 Courtesy family of Carola Eliot Goriansky </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Imagine a world before graduate schools churned out thousands of architects and city planners a year. This book gives us an inside look at the birth of numerous allied professions. The first American school of architecture was established at MIT in 1867. Locating a practice, as H.H. Richardson did in 1874 in nearby Brookline, allowed for a symbiotic relationship between mentor and neophyte, his practice blurred home and office, school and work life, much like the Paris atelier he came from. In late 19th century America there were no professional schools for landscape architects until 1900 when F.L.Olmsted Jr. and Arthur Shurcliff oversaw the creation of a program in landscape architecture at Harvard University. Prior to that, it was through internship at the Olmsted firm that one gained the necessary skills to practice. Charles Eliot, was the very first such intern, who later went on to found the Trustees of Reservations, due to his deep understanding and passion for planning on a regional scale. <br />
<br />
In these early days, practitioners were free to apply their talents to best advantage, and in some cases, such as when F.L. Olmsted Jr. was asked to assist with the subdivision of "Holm Lea", the Sargent Estate, they conditioned their professional involvement upon being given control over all aspects of a development. They understood that the outcome would be enhanced if all aspects of site design, architecture, landscaping, road design, etc. were executed from a unified perspective. In the case of the Sargent Estate, the heirs were reluctant to give such control to the younger Olmsted. Due in large part to a history of wealth and insular governance, as well
as the presence of these civic-minded design professionals, Brookline established one of the first Planning Commissions in Massachusetts, in 1914, with F.L. Olmsted Jr. serving as it's first chair . We follow the story of the birth of city planning as F.L. Olmsted Jr. , in 1910 founded the first national organization of city planners, the National Conference on City Planning. Brookline
was one of the first municipalities to adopt a zoning by-law, doing so
in 1922, just two years after state enabling legislation was passed in
1920. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfumz1cWTceGtGQZLcGz3gX55_9-wGTH-tVMSK6FRxQdXmoeGqA7NKOz1-0Fd-4-sJ7-Sl1lNi3kBSB8zrkGjdIHtO2dZBu8x7gW4dk_6ysFIMuKiL2mNeU4bN9TBhmmR9MOLGv577oR88/s1600/Fisher+Hill.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfumz1cWTceGtGQZLcGz3gX55_9-wGTH-tVMSK6FRxQdXmoeGqA7NKOz1-0Fd-4-sJ7-Sl1lNi3kBSB8zrkGjdIHtO2dZBu8x7gW4dk_6ysFIMuKiL2mNeU4bN9TBhmmR9MOLGv577oR88/s1600/Fisher+Hill.jpg" height="130" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Plan for Fisher Hill, 1886 FL & JC Olmsted Copy of Lithograph Courtesy Brookline Public Library</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Unlike the hyper-specialization in today's professional world, F.L.Olmsted saw the big picture and could envision change well into the future. Olmsted's skills and practice reached far beyond the limited role landscape architects are forced to inhabit today. He did not approach his commissions from a purely "aesthetic" point of view, instead he operated more as a problem solver, applying a few key principles consistently. His understanding of the benefits of working with nature, such as respecting and working with existing topography, and utilizing the natural flows of water are again in vogue today as influential landscape designers champion the use of native plants, minimal soil disruption and existing water supplies instead of the heavy-handed Army Corps of Engineers approach prevalent in the intervening years. We see in the design for "Brookline Hill", later renamed Fisher Hill, how Olmsted layed out curving roadways to take advantage of views and create a meandering feel. He also, to achieve his client's goal, created large lots for spacious homes, complete with deed restrictions.<br />
<br />
Olmsted had a profound insight into what today we call "environmental psychology" he knew how people responded to certain settings and he knew how to create those settings and experiences. He could envisage the experience of calm pleasure and peacefulness that ensues from traversing a curvy and tree-lined roadway. All of his plans, including Central Park, Beacon St. and the Emerald Necklace flowed from first designing appropriate transportation and linkages. In fact, we would perhaps not be experiencing the levels of traffic congestion present today, had the planning professions absorbed the lessons to be learned from the separation of travel mode which where an innovation inherent in all Olmsted plans.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdvA15xQyYwkSihOio9BFifFZuIrm3kIq74Rd8-lqcQBfjRGqRMzpBz-PyelCxprAGxyDNtArvZfzr_LOb-LTQCdTvKePBZwk1RKQWlgDqklFWpTO8EJCmlmigx74TGY25SOkRCw3_sVKH/s1600/BrooksideRoadways.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdvA15xQyYwkSihOio9BFifFZuIrm3kIq74Rd8-lqcQBfjRGqRMzpBz-PyelCxprAGxyDNtArvZfzr_LOb-LTQCdTvKePBZwk1RKQWlgDqklFWpTO8EJCmlmigx74TGY25SOkRCw3_sVKH/s1600/BrooksideRoadways.jpg" height="320" width="297" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sketch of Proposed Brookside Roads in Upper Brookline 1894 Courtesy National Park Service, F.L. Olmsted N.H.S.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Development pressures were great and reading this book we learn how the families of wealth and influence who lived in South Brookline hired the Olmsted firm to help them ward off plans for intensive development. Rather than a narrowly focused response, the firm took a more comprehensive tact, proposing a network of parkways as an antecedent to future growth. The plan included a partway linking Jamaica Pond with the Brookline Reservoir.<br />
<br />
<i>Community by Design </i>will inform scholarship on a great many subjects, and as a resident of Brookline, I am grateful for the depth of insight to be gained from reading about such a pivotal time in our history and the people who helped shape our landscape. The Olmsted firm worked on hundreds of projects for the town and the town's land owners, with their keen insight creating much of landscape we enjoy today.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-49514809371243758222012-06-04T12:48:00.001-04:002012-06-04T12:51:15.351-04:00Video on Cycletracks from Portland<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/10559007" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-43829174263046531182012-04-29T14:12:00.001-04:002012-04-29T14:16:19.125-04:00Bicycles: Can we acheive harmony and respect?<span style="font-size: small;">The bicycle is a marvel. A human-powered machine of utmost simplicity. It is often referred to as the most efficient form of transportation around</span>. Burns calories, not fuel. The bike is being rediscovered and celebrated around the world, as a cheap form of transportation suitable for young and old alike.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG9ERvQhn2BonUdamahnIFJNnW8IUMHyiNCjY-a5rrUvLmAN8bzM3Ijx3eqiMUM2ddRm1LhzndWVm14-8O42zmsyNaDwk49mW5acunmrPghGNVt7yTq-AEOM34rLIG9B6NXS__7ej7qOIf/s1600/Bike+Parade+Derrick+Linda+Cynthia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG9ERvQhn2BonUdamahnIFJNnW8IUMHyiNCjY-a5rrUvLmAN8bzM3Ijx3eqiMUM2ddRm1LhzndWVm14-8O42zmsyNaDwk49mW5acunmrPghGNVt7yTq-AEOM34rLIG9B6NXS__7ej7qOIf/s320/Bike+Parade+Derrick+Linda+Cynthia.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
Enabling and supporting bicycling furthers many important public objectives. More bicycles means fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars means less congestion, less air pollution, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less parking demand. These benefits accrue to everyone, not just the bicyclists. More bicyclists means more healthy physical activity, reinforcing Brookline Health Departments' Brookline on the Move initiative. A bike can be an essential means of transportation for someone who cannot afford or chooses not own a car. So, in making it safer to ride a bike by providing designated bike lanes and more convenient bike parking, we are supporting many worthy goals.<br />
<br />
Improving bike safety will encourage more people to ride and therefore, more benefits will stack up. Mobility and access are improved for everyone, including those who do not drive. The air will be cleaner and safer to breath. People will get healthy exercise. Being on a bike lets us encounter our surroundings and the world in a more immediate and direct way, maybe even leading to more community involvement. With the new Hubway bikeshare system, visitors, employees and residents will have easy access to a convenient, healthy way to get around. Tourists will be able to enjoy more of what Brookline has to offer. <br />
<br />
So, why is there so much animosity and derision hurled at bicyclists? Why is there so much vocal opposition and obstruction when it comes to improving conditions for biking in Brookline? We hear over and over how bad bicyclists are at following the rules and that they don't exercise prudent riding styles. No doubt there are few bad apples out there, for whom some scorn is justified. But this does not explain the militant anti-bike fervor we see. After all, there are plenty of motorists and pedestrians who behave badly too, but we never hear a collective call of hostility and degradation for motorists or pedestrians. The mean spirited disregard for bicyclists' safety is shocking and inappropriate. And yet, it seems to be accepted and tolerated. There is something bigger going on here.<br />
<br />
For many years (since the 1950's) planning, infrastructure and street design have all catered exclusively to the automobile. Much of the American landscape has been transformed into a land of roads, parking lots and private garages, dominating both visual and spatial dimensions completely. Walking or riding a bike became precarious, dangerous and viewed with suspicion, perhaps a sign of social deviance or poverty. How inhumane those sub-conscious thoughts are, and yet in most places in the US this reality is all there is and going car-less is virtually impossible. Fortunately, Brookline was settled well before this time. We are blessed with compact walkable and bikable landscapes. We can get around to many of our destinations without driving a car. Trust me, we are envied for this aspect of our lifestyle. Yes, we have narrow streets. Yes, Massachusetts breeds a particularly forceful street behavior, pitting ourselves against those impeding our progress. All of these forces have carried over into the latest form of this conflict, Article 23.<br />
<br />
Article 23, which will come before Brookline Town Meeting this spring, began life as a Home Rule Petition that sought to strip our Transportation Board of its authority to approve and implement a certain type of bike lane, called a contra-flow lane. This type of bike lane is suitable in rare and particular conditions where a short connector is needed to allow bikes to travel a safe and logical route on a street where cars have been limited to one-way travel. Opposition to the Home rule petition led to a re-working of Article 23.<br />
<br />
So now, Article 23 has been amended to be a resolution calling for our T
Board to draft criteria, with the explicit input of certain town boards
and commissions, which will define when contraflow bike lanes may be
appropriate and to describe what factors and relative weights will be
given to various perspectives and concerns. In other words, our staff and T Board must justify and defend themselves to the satisfaction of their critics. These folks don't trust our professional Town engineering staff to
utilize appropriate judgement and they don't trust our Transportation
Board to be thoughtful and considerate of multiple stakeholders. This despite the fact that their decisions have not resulted in any safety problems and they hold multiple well-noticed hearings on each decision they make. It is
hard for some to see the validity of doing anything on behalf of the
bicyclist, despite the many benefits alluded to earlier. <br />
<br />
It seems that the idea that bikes require any kind of specific treatment or accommodation really doesn't sit well with those opposed to bikes in the first place. There was a sentiment expressed that if bicyclists can't follow the rules, then we should not make any attempt to accommodate them. This is a catch-22, as it is the lack of accommodation that can make biking that much more challenging, leading to unorthodox riding behavior. It was argued that because pedestrians jaywalk and drivers park on the wrong side of the street, we can't legalize a bike route that might conflict with these other illegal behaviors. What? Here we see an articulation of a biased preference and unconscious hierarchy that prejudice some persons' world view. I don't hear bicyclists decry sidewalks and roadways because motorists and pedestrians don't always follow the rules. Treating bicyclists as a third class citizen is pervasive. Pitting one "mode" of transportation against the others fosters aggression, animosity and ill will. <br />
<br />
We can't afford to think this way. Being safe and accommodating each mode appropriately is possible and necessary. What is lacking here is empathy. This isn't surprising. If you've never tried to ride a bike in traffic you cannot understand the degree of vulnerability you feel on a bike. You couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of how difficult it is to safely navigate a left turn on busy multi-lane streets on a bike. You would not understand why it seems like a bicyclist is swerving randomly, when in fact they are trying to stay erect by dodging debris and potholes at the side of the road. And yes, it might make sense and be safe for a bike to travel a short way down a road in a direction prohibited to cars. The adage "Same road, Same rules" is helpful because it establishes that the appropriate place for bikes is in the street and admonishes everyone to think of the bike as a vehicle. But, it is overly simplistic. A bike is fundamentally different, and infinitely more vulnerable. So let's try to be safe, courteous, conscious and empathetic out there. We don't need to impose more burdens on our Transportation Board. If someone doesn't like a decision they can appeal it to the Board of Selectmen. Let's send a message that we support bicycling and bike facilities. Vote no on Article 23.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-32615571225423392802011-10-22T17:22:00.010-04:002011-11-13T09:10:38.616-05:00What's Wrong with Article 13?Article 13 began life as a resolution calling for the installation of a pedestrian-actuated traffic control signal at the Green St. crosswalk in Coolidge Corner. That's the crosswalk going from Friendly's to Upper Crust and the Coolidge Corner Theater at the corner of Green St. and Harvard St. in the heart of our beloved CC shopping district. The Article has since been amended to call for a study of said light.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmuyh5vl_nAIazvGbg5AwMCmt53dlWpLHV2ZSKS7vEUiUzwyD3YHXrWkW619mXs8CkRZ6LPn1NxdXMdxCu6JHvkBRrnY2xrVp2jq-n2Mi7cR_g4sklEo4lKhzx4x0-QHbIS2fOo-dn24SV/s1600/Two-WalkersWeb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmuyh5vl_nAIazvGbg5AwMCmt53dlWpLHV2ZSKS7vEUiUzwyD3YHXrWkW619mXs8CkRZ6LPn1NxdXMdxCu6JHvkBRrnY2xrVp2jq-n2Mi7cR_g4sklEo4lKhzx4x0-QHbIS2fOo-dn24SV/s320/Two-WalkersWeb.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
The petitioner claims that all will be right with the universe if we do this. In this alternate universe, pedestrians will line up and press the button, then patiently wait a minute and a half, happy to cross when the whooshing vehicles are finally forced to stop by the red light, the pedestrians will scurry quickly across, then once again the vehicles will resume whooshing. All this will occur because the traffic lights at the nearby intersections at Beacon and Babcock will be coordinated and perfectly synced to move the traffic in seamless flow. Too bad none of this alternate reality scenario resembles reality.<br />
<br />
I can appreciate the appeal and simple logic of this idea. Unfortunately, the traffic and pedestrian flows along this stretch of Harvard are anything but simple and the addition of a traffic control signal at Green St. will wreak havoc to traffic flows along this stretch of Harvard. Consider the following: 1) Traffic flows are two-way and these two-way flows are not equally balanced. 2) There are turning vehicles that enter the traffic stream on Harvard St., even when Harvard St. is red at Beacon. Vehicles turn right, going north from westbound Beacon, vehicles turn left from westbound Babcock. 3) These folks, along with those at the tail end of the previous green light and other, non-synced flows (contrary to popular belief the lights cannot be perfectly synched due to reasons #1 and #2) will be stopped for 20 seconds or more at the new light at the Green St. cross walk. Hardly a recipe for whooshing. 4) If you think slowing and occasionally stopping for pedestrians at the crosswalk is annoying for drivers now, imagine a light stopping all traffic for one-half of the available time (Beacon green), whenever anyone may have pushed the button, whether they are there now or not. and 5) The travel lanes widen to two just before and through the Beacon St. intersection, then suddenly tapering down to one again, right before the cross walk. This bulge and squeeze is the real reason there is a flow issue at Beacon and Harvard, not the cross walk.<br />
<br />
The petitioner has told us that the pedestrian light is not a new idea, that its been studied and recommended before. This is absolutely not true. The 2005 study he cites had it wrong, (there existing conditions report stated that there was already a light there), and simply recommended the signals be coordinated. Clearly, these folks had a keen power of observation. The other 2009 study concluded that the Green St. crosswalk did not seem to be a dominant issue creating backups. This was based on field observation and not a study of potential impacts. The petitioner also stated that all other options for improvement had been tried. Again, not true. Professor Peter Furth, former Transportation Board member, professor of civil engineering at Northeastern University, PhD from MIT in Transportation Systems and recipient of the 2004, Best Paper award from the Transportation Research Board Committee on Traffic Signal Systems, strongly warns against signalizing the crosswalk. Peter's advanced traffic signal control class looked at this stretch of Harvard St. as a case study. They concluded that the core problem was that too many vehicles were passing through the Beacon St. intersection and that this problem could be corrected by shortening the length of the traffic signal cycle. Professor Furth strongly warns against putting such a light here, and as a resident of Brookline he strongly objects, noting how well the crosswalk works now and understanding the benefits to maintaining a safe, pedestrian friendly shopping district. Professor Furth's study, complete with traffic flow simulations is the most indepth study done to date, and yet the petitioner did not even bother to read it. Brookline's Director of Engineering, Peter Ditto testified at the Selectmen's hearing on this Article that his Department did not feel a pedestrian-actuated light should be studied.<br />
<br />
There is Town wide desire to improve travel conditions in Coolidge Corner, which is why the petitioner has succeeded in gathering some support for the article, but there is also a clear sense, expressed by many, that we should be looking more holistically at travel conditions near Beacon and Harvard and that we should not be entering into a study already having concluded what the source and solution to the problem is. The petitioner has assured us that other ideas will be looked at. Yet, this is not what the resolution says, and the resolution cannot be modified because it would become a fundamentally different Article. I don't know about you but I am not comfortable giving my support to something based on the assurance that really, its not what it says it is.<br />
<br />
The fact is the petitioner has decided what improvement is desirable and concluded that it would have a positive result, all without the benefit of professional knowledge, without supporting facts or analysis, without consultation with the Town staff or boards responsible for these decisions, who have been, by the way, working diligently observing, testing and working with consultants to solve the problem. Doesn't their opinion matter? <br />
<br />
So, what’s wrong with passing the Article and studying the traffic signal? Surely, the study will come to the same conclusions as Professor Furth and the idea of the traffic signal will be dropped. For starters, such a study looks at the wrong thing, making it a waste of Town resources, we already have the advantage of a high-caliber free study showing us the way towards a promising alternative improvement. Second, directing the scope, focus and policy direction of a consultant’s work away from the fundamental problem and towards a single, ill conceived and predetermined result is bad science and bad policy and will prevent us from identifying better, more cost effective solutions that work for everyone, whether on foot, bike or in a car. And third, let's pass a resolution that lets the professionals do their job, instead of telling them what the conclusion is before they start.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-10414957898792027282011-05-07T21:02:00.000-04:002011-05-07T21:02:21.975-04:00Reading Olmsted's Walks and Talks of an American Farmer in England<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
--
</style>
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span> The recent broadcast of the documentary "Olmsted and America's Urban Parks on PBS, inspired me to revisit this article describing Olmsted's early book, Walks and Talks of an American Farmer in England, which was first published in Our Town Brookline June, 2006. I highly recommend this early book of Olmsted's to anyone with a sincere desire to understand the man, his vision and his talents.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoWsPE3rCEAkyaiS2aWHSxwtzZUu8JrYeWCFm8hUkfH1di1w_ngGkkHaevGdOgdmP5LjR53qAERg_wtdKrZrl6bxf8Uya6cIsEE62AxHzuXwPvXM4w-q3Zgk1_XPiXY8BJSB0HDjgn_Yrs/s1600/OlmstedPark.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoWsPE3rCEAkyaiS2aWHSxwtzZUu8JrYeWCFm8hUkfH1di1w_ngGkkHaevGdOgdmP5LjR53qAERg_wtdKrZrl6bxf8Uya6cIsEE62AxHzuXwPvXM4w-q3Zgk1_XPiXY8BJSB0HDjgn_Yrs/s320/OlmstedPark.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Frederick Law Olmsted is best known as the designer of New
York’s Central Park and Boston’s own Emerald Necklace. What is less well known
is that he practiced a number of different professions before finding his
life’s work. Long before he began designing landscapes, F.L. Olmsted authored
his first book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Walks and Talks of an
American Farmer in England.</i> It’s a chatty recounting of his month long
walking tour through the English countryside. Reading it today, we get a
glimpse of the formative experiences of a great talent. Originally published in
two volumes in 1852, the book was reissued in 2002 with annotated text and an
excellent introduction by noted Olmsted scholar Charles C. McLaughlin. Written
from copious journals and letters home, Olmsted’s narrative is intimate,
descriptive and often very funny. We are in the company of a young, energetic
and inquiring mind. </div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">At the age of 28, F.L. Olmsted, his younger brother John and
John’s Yale roommate, Charles Loring Brace set sail for Liverpool, England, a
journey that took 26 days. To secure a place on the trip, Frederick convinced
his father that he needed to study scientific farming in England to benefit his
current agricultural endeavor on Staten Island. To call the trip an adventure
is an understatement by today’s standards, as the sea voyage alone was fraught
with hardships, potential peril and a great deal of discomfort. Funds were
tight and the young men traveled in the hardscrabble mode of students the world
over.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At this point, Olmsted’s
future was anything but determined. Prior to farming, he had been a surveyor, a
clerk in a retail store, a merchant seaman, (a job that took him on a perilous
journey to China), and a journalist. Unlike most of his peers, he did not go to
college, but was nonetheless widely read and inquisitive.</div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Knowing what we do about F. L. Olmsted’s later achievements and
remarkable career, reading this, his first book is a chance to witness the
gestation of the many skills, attitudes, beliefs, and aesthetic preferences
that, when blended together, would result in Olmsted’s wholly unique set of
abilities. Open, amiable, adventurous, inquisitive, and exacting in his
observations and critiques, Olmsted approaches England, “the mother land” with
an affectionate regard, yet also with an eye for the distinctions and
improvements his newly free America has wrought. He pursues a wide variety of
subjects, including social class structure, land economics, scientific farming,
religious beliefs, treatment of prisoners, status of the poor, landscape and
its effect on psychology, health and social cohesion, architecture, and city
form. Yet none of these were abstract concepts to Olmsted, his genius was his
ability to connect his observations with the wider forces that were in fact
shaping those experiences he was witnessing. He had a reformers heart, but a realist’s view of the
world.</div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">His many analytical skills are put to good use as he
systematically gathers first hand knowledge through penetrating observation and conversations with people from all walks of life. He acquires vast technical knowledge about
soil, climate, engineering techniques and the conditions necessary for healthy
plant life. While the resulting long, detailed passages may prove tedious for
some readers, the knowledge Olmsted gains will undoubtedly prove invaluable
when it comes time to transform the barren and swampy lands he was often given
to work with into pastoral paradises. </div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We also meet Olmsted the social critic and reformer. His
traveling companion, Charles Loring Brace would later found the Children’s Aid
Society in New York City and it was probably at his urging that the trio
visited prisons, alms houses, jails and village schools. In this context
Olmsted is pragmatic, practical and open minded, displaying an eagerness to
embrace divergent points of view, and yet he still forms his own definite
opinions. Despite the trip’s focus on learning and research, Olmsted was above
all else acutely open to the experience of his immediate surroundings and as a
skilled writer he is able to capture and share those sensations.</div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Olmsted’s month long walking tour through the English
countryside would have a profound and lasting effect on the rest of his life.
Many of the scenes and events that captivate and enlighten him mark the genesis
of some of the core passions that would later propel him towards his ultimate
profession. On the Isle of Wight Olmsted considers the profoundly soothing
effect of nature when he writes, “ Dame Nature is a gentle woman…Gradually and
silently the charm comes over us; the beauty has entered our souls; we know not
exactly when or how, but going away we remember it with a tender, subdued,
filial-like joy”. A pleasant walk on a public promenade in Chester gives rise
to his belief in the social benefits of shared public spaces. He experiences
the extreme contrast between the dismal slums of industrial Liverpool and the
beauty of the surrounding countryside and would go on to devise new
metropolitan forms that better blend the advantages of both urban and rural
life. </div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We are witness to Olmsted’s epiphany at Birkenhead Park, a
public park outside of Liverpool. It was by happy accident that he visited the
park at all and yet it was an experience that changed the course of history.
Created by landscape gardeners Joseph Paxton and Edward Kemp, the entire park
was under-drained, with wide carriage roads and paths, rock gardens, pavilions,
trees and shrubs and ponds stocked with fish and swans. Olmsted observes that
“…large valleys were made verdant, extensive drives arranged - plantations,
clumps, and avenues of trees formed, and a large park laid out. And all this
magnificent pleasure-ground is entirely, unreservedly, and forever the people’s
own. The poorest British peasant is as free to enjoy it in all its parts as the
British queen. More than that, the baker of Birkenhead has the pride of an
OWNER in it. Is it not a grand good thing?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was a revelation to Olmsted, for at this time there
were no such public parks in America. </div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It sometimes took private wealth to create great art, as in
the case of Eaton Hall in Chester. Eaton was one of over 1,000 private estates
in England at the time, many of which were known the world over for the beauty
of their lavish grounds. The private ownership of so many great parks in
England fueled Olmsted’s conviction that public ownership and access to such
natural beauty was a vital necessity in a democratic America. The artistic
lessons to be learned here would not be lost on Olmsted, either. Immediately
upon seeing Capability Brown’s landscape, Olmsted finds himself identifying
with the creator and exclaims, “What artist, so noble, has often been my
thought, as he, who with far-reaching conception of beauty and designing power,
sketches the outline, writes the colors, and directs the shadows of a picture
so great that Nature shall be employed upon it for generations, before the work
he has arranged for her shall realize his intentions” These sentiments describe
the far reaching vision that necessarily define the yet to be born profession
of landscape architecture. </div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Landscape viewing had become an intellectual as well as
recreational pursuit in America by the mid 19<sup>th</sup> century. Olmsted’s
father, John had read Sir Uvedale Price, William Gilpin, Richard Knight, and
John C. Loudon, writers who waxed poetically about landscapes that were
picturesque, beautiful and sublime. A definition of these terms evolved as a
common lexicon and fostered the popular pastime of extended outings seeking
vistas and views of scenic value. Picturesque scenery made a good, sketchable
picture and fell somewhere between the soft, rounded tranquil aesthetic of
beautiful landscapes and the awe and grandeur one finds in sublime settings
such as Niagara Falls. As a young boy Frederick’s father had taken him on many
such outings. In this way he was already tuned into “analyzing” a landscape, a
skill he developed to a remarkable degree. </div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In the English landscape he found that form of the
picturesque he most admired, a domesticated land that has been cultivated for
centuries, one that fell somewhere between natural and civilized. He would
later strive to recreate his idealized versions of the Victorian English
landscape back home on American soil. Upon first seeing it he exclaimed, “The
country-and such a country!-green, dripping, glistening, gorgeous! We stood
dumb-stricken by its loveliness…-in an English lane; with hedges, English
hedges, hawthorn hedges, all in blossom; homely old farm houses, quaint
stables, and haystacks; the old church spire over the distant trees; the mild
sun beaming through the watery atmosphere...” Through observation he was able
to identify the precise combinations and relationships of scenic elements that
made up this landscape, as when he observed, “The great beauty and peculiarity
of the English landscape is to be found in the frequent long, graceful lines of
deep green hedges and hedge-row timber, crossing hill, valley, and plain, in
every direction; and in the occasional large trees, dotting the broad fields,
either singly or in small groups…here is everywhere a great deal of quiet,
peaceful, graceful beauty, which the works of man have generally added to.” </div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It seems a special privilege to accompany a young Olmsted on
his trip. Reading <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Walks and Talks</i> is
meaningful for those interested in learning about Olmsted’s early experiences,
but the book can also stand on it’s own as an enjoyable travel book, giving a
descriptive narrative of the English countryside of the mid 19<sup>th</sup>
century.</div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div>Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-90492996724444207922011-01-31T13:24:00.003-05:002011-02-02T10:01:04.386-05:00Landscape Urbanism vs. The New UrbanistsLet me get this straight. A group of landscape architects are claiming that the road to urban sustainability can only be found if we place primary importance on protection of the natural environment (i.e. leaving the land as undisturbed as possible). They claim that suburbia (sprawl) has a greater potential to achieve their vision because of it's dispersed settlement patterns. In their minds they are in opposition to the New Urbanists' led by architect Andres Duany, who say that the built environment's form should mirror walkable town center's to enable a denser, more compact and social development pattern. The relevant point here is that we have landscape architects and architects each devising "systems" that are anything but systematic or holistic in their scope. Is it any surprise that the landscape architects are yelling "it's all about the landscape stupid" or the architect's screaming, "it's all about the buildings stupid!" Of course it is about both, and there are plenty of enlightened planner's who have grasped this reality for a long time. <br />
<br />
To me, the one truly valuable contribution brought by the landscape urbanists' is their fundamental questioning of the long-term ecological viability of our over-engineered, mechanistic storm water infrastructure. They wish to see a more cohesive melding of human settlements and the natural functioning of land. This is not a new idea, and it is one that can be brought into urban settings, bringing the life enhancing benefits of living in close proximity to naturally functioning landscapes to urban dwellers. But to think that this implies that suburban development patterns are superior ecologically is to live in denial of the fact that human populations have already swelled beyond the capacity of our land resources to support a completely dispersed population, it also denies the devastating waste and environmental toll wrought by sprawl in terms of the very land resources they wish to protect, not to mention, the vast about of infrastructure and fuel needed to support the exclusively private automobile transportation system. I cannot agree with their assertion that suburbia is "what Americans' want". As we all know, cheap land, and federal subsidies to the oil industry and mortgage business have fueled this so-called "choice". Young people today do not seem to be making the same choice, whether it is because of shifting economics or lifestyle choice, the demand for walkable urban housing is growing drastically. The landscape urbanists' "anti-urban" urban vision also denies the fundamental fact that humans are social creatures who thrive on live exchange of ideas and shared experiences.<br />
<br />
There are familiar "holes" in the New Urbanists' theories too. From the very beginning it has been pointed out that just building the "bones" does not a living, thriving community make. In other words, just because a newly planned community contains office space or retail space there are no guarantees that there will be a "match" between these jobs and goods and the nearby residents. Expensive, "faux" neighborhoods do not make a real neighborhood, where people care about the place and look after one another's interests without the modern planned communities' regulatory deed restrictions and covenants. Yet, the New Urbanists' insights were a leap forward; they helped us understand the role of walkability, street grid patterns, pedestrian scale and mixed use in creating livable places. These lessons are still just as valuable today. Are these lessons all that we need to create sustainable communities? Of course not. But then, neither is the Landscape Urbanists' theory of land protection. There are still the fundamental questions of life support systems, such as fuel for heat, electricity, water, food, transportation, the economy, family life, community and all the other basic necessities. <br />
<br />
The fact that these two "camps" consider themselves in opposition is laughable. Both make interesting and valuable points. Both have huge blind spots and holes in their theories. Neither one of them is good in isolation and neither one of them is an appropriate blue print for future action in the real world. Since we can't wipe the slate clean and apply either one of these theories on a large scale in a pristine setting, I suggest that both camps get busy working on real world applications. Better yet, how about talking directly to each other and to others who have been thinking systemically for a long time? I have a great deal of tolerance and even delight in research and theorizing when it comes to urban planning. After all, how would we ever get new ideas if we focused only on the here and now. But in this debate, we see the ivory tower run amok. <br />
<br />
It's amusing that their testosterone fueled debate has vaulted this spitting match to the pages of the <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/30/green_building/">Sunday Boston Globe</a><a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/30/green_building/">.</a> I can't remember when I last saw an article in a major newspaper covering an academic debate between two "competing" theories of urban planning. Perhaps this is due to a growing awareness that the tools and techniques of urban planning are useful mechanisms for helping us navigate the challenges of climate change and fossil fuel depletion. More of the general public has an interest in urban planning than ever before it seems. It would be nice if that attention didn't get dissipated by watching a school yard wrestling match. Rather, the time has come to collaborate and apply all the good ideas we can find to the massive problems we face.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-77569266245695492782010-11-20T09:19:00.000-05:002010-11-20T09:19:13.490-05:00The Case for Article 10I just tried to watch the Article 10 Town Meeting debate on BATV. Sadly, the sound was completely messed up. For that reason, I am posting the text of my presentation here. Special Thanks to all of the excellent presenters speaking in favor of Article 10 at Town Meeting, those who had a chance to speak, and those who did not. Linda Hamlin, AIA, Brookline Planning Board; Eunice White, TMM Pct. 2; Jim Batchelor, AIA, Preservation Commission; John Bassett, TMM Pct. 6; Brian Kane, Brookline Transportation Board, TMM Pct. 6; Werner Lohe, Conservation Commission, TMM Pct. 13, Rob Daves, TMM Pct. 5; Andrew Fischer, TMM Pct. 13; Anita Johnson, TMM Pct. 8<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Well, I guess no one really cares very much about parking in Brookline do they? <br />
<br />
Why did I bring this Article to Town Meeting? I’ve been immersed in this subject professionally and personally for many years. The Selectmen’s Parking Committee was a dedicated and talented group of individuals and as a member of that Committee, I thought it would be unfortunate not to see progress towards implementation of our recommendation to lower residential parking requirements. I believe this action is necessary to protect the beauty of our neighborhoods and our quality of life. I appreciate the focused attention and interest so many of you have paid to this topic and look forward to continuing our collective efforts towards achieving better parking policy in Brookline. <br />
<br />
Article 10 is a proposal to reduce the minimum amount of parking we require for new multi-family residential construction within ? mile of MBTA T stops. The new minimums would be 1 space for a studio/1 bedroom unit, 1.2 spaces for a 2 bedroom unit and 1.4 spaces for a three bedroom unit. Two and three family homes would be required to provide 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit and Single family homes remain virtually unchanged, with a two space minimum. The requirements are applied to new development and when a dwelling is converted or added onto. <br />
<br />
Some have raised concerns that the proposed minimums may not be appropriate for new housing, because high-income buyers want more parking. That’s debatable, but irrelevant because the proposed rates are only minimums, there are no maximums. Anyone wishing to build more parking would be able to. But by not requiring such a high level of parking, we are getting closer to allowing need, market, location and good design dictate the amount of parking to be built for a particular building. If the choice is to build luxury units, then let the market decide rather than regulate for that. If the choice is to target those seeking newly constructed units with less parking, lowering the minimums is the only way to allow that option. <br />
<br />
What doesn’t Article 10 do? Article 10 does not increase the amount of building allowed. It also doesn’t take away any existing parking or change the equilibrium already established between rental parking and the buildings with little or no on-site parking. It is not about forcing people to give up their car or making them take the T. But it is a response to the fact that our residents within a 1/2 mile of the T have chosen to live in a transit-oriented setting and don’t collectively need as much parking as we currently make them build and buy. The key word there is collectively. Article 10 doesn’t prohibit those households who need two cars from having them, it just acknowledges the fact that not everyone does. <br />
<br />
We’ve seen how emotional an issue parking can be. It’s hard to be objective about it. Whether you think we need more or less, we all think about parking through the lens of our own experience and observations. Collectively these observations make up a kind of truth, but we’re not hearing the full range of viewpoints and experiences. Among those we do not hear from are those who don’t drive. But, when asked to think about parking policy, we project our own wants, needs and desires onto that hypothetical household we are trying to plan for. But Brookline is home to a diverse population of individuals all making choices that best suit their own unique situation. So, as far as prediction goes, the best we can hope for is to observe what has happened and objectively quantify conditions as they are today, which is the approach we took on the Parking Committee. <br />
<br />
But there is a bit of the aspirational in any planning policy. After all isn’t that what the Comprehensive Planning process was all about? Trying to articulate our vision for the Brookline of tomorrow? Choosing goals and implementing them through policy is what planning is all about. We set priorities and make trade-offs. Our Plan articulates a lot of worthy goals. We want to encourage the use of transit. In fact, our Plan cites a Town survey in which Brookline residents identified access to transit as their number one criteria for choosing to live here. We want to preserve our historic structures, streetscapes and neighborhoods. We want a community friendly to pedestrians and bikes. We want to support local businesses and preserve open space. We want a diversity of housing types and affordability ranges. We want to limit traffic congestion and yet our zoning by-law requires parking for more vehicles than most of our residents even choose to own. Bringing more traffic into our neighborhoods, making it harder to walk and bike, increasing the cost of housing and threatening open space and historic structures. So we’ve managed to implement a policy that works against our stated goals.<br />
<br />
How we treat parking in our zoning by-law makes a big difference. Today’s parking requirements are twice as high as they were until 1986. The pleasing streetscapes and walkable neighborhoods we enjoy would not have been possible had today’s parking requirements been in place when they were built. Instead, we would have streets lined with garage front houses, underground garage ramps, and surface parking lots and roadways that could not handle the traffic volume. High minimum on-site requirements mean we must fit all that extra parking onto each tiny lot and it takes its toll. Beautiful historic structures are lost to new buildings that must be designed around parking, often resulting in first floors that are garage fronts and parking. Yards are paved, pedestrians harassed and streetscapes destroyed. When we raised the parking requirements, we threw an additional significant spatial demand into the equation, throwing off the balanced equilibrium designed into the by-law between Floor Area Ratio, Setbacks, Open Space and parking. We require all these standards be met, but they can’t possibly be, so special permit violations must be given. There is no special permit provision for a reduction in parking requirements for new residential construction. Instead, the bulk and height of the building is often increased because it incorporates the parking. Over time, if left unchanged, these requirements will transform the form of our town, replacing our homes one by one with hybrid garage homes. There are no design standards that will “fix this problem” or preservation mandates that will protect our structures. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">Some Hybrid Garage/Homes</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEiuKEbtWWt9eTMjEHymkETvGzyw-1H0_svGc1wywAX1wBMCTHQ6TA9bIGK4UPqS7jz_379jgPuqVwk285QF1jZEjCpH-oqOe3VziO1t_C-IhpEFGNNHIW-ic47z4wXIXoWOQAhjvtk9i2/s1600/51-St.-Paul-StWeb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEiuKEbtWWt9eTMjEHymkETvGzyw-1H0_svGc1wywAX1wBMCTHQ6TA9bIGK4UPqS7jz_379jgPuqVwk285QF1jZEjCpH-oqOe3VziO1t_C-IhpEFGNNHIW-ic47z4wXIXoWOQAhjvtk9i2/s200/51-St.-Paul-StWeb.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD8IlYvAdRzxDFyzzZiTm2KD1laVsnhiyEf65QyVNJMeAWRSbMnowRbey8MywLdITATknhZLFTHKqkmpLAeJrI1CceuEY83YZk17qgKCuB1YNFrPMyBX-SXZFSjFf2ldXtuQwjEYuJuHgk/s1600/121CentreSt.2Web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjD8IlYvAdRzxDFyzzZiTm2KD1laVsnhiyEf65QyVNJMeAWRSbMnowRbey8MywLdITATknhZLFTHKqkmpLAeJrI1CceuEY83YZk17qgKCuB1YNFrPMyBX-SXZFSjFf2ldXtuQwjEYuJuHgk/s200/121CentreSt.2Web.jpg" width="150" /></a></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKMkWco0Es_ia_fpIaE0537U6shcDRo73WkfgKjB-vCnlsL4had3UD7jCVF6V5ux8PmOqFozaHjGHynpHRct1rCXuaQxOR5UTtmN0_vcdGHO9zVVayenvntrqdAXHhY0tYnBWT1du5CxOV/s1600/120BrowneA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKMkWco0Es_ia_fpIaE0537U6shcDRo73WkfgKjB-vCnlsL4had3UD7jCVF6V5ux8PmOqFozaHjGHynpHRct1rCXuaQxOR5UTtmN0_vcdGHO9zVVayenvntrqdAXHhY0tYnBWT1du5CxOV/s200/120BrowneA.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Selectmen’s Parking Committee was appointed in 2008. With the help of Town Planning staff we undertook an in-depth study of our parking requirements and existing parking conditions, and we learned a great deal. Based on our research:<br />
<br />
We know that the average multi-family household, including two and three family dwellings within the overlay zone owns about 1 car. 23% of these same households own no car.<br />
<br />
We know that 47% of commuters living in the overlay take public transportation, walk or bike to work.<br />
<br />
We know that the total number of cars in Brookline has declined since 1998 while the population has increased. <br />
<br />
We know that Brookline Zipcar membership has increased from 40 to 3,300 in the last decade.<br />
<br />
We know that existing buildings with parking requirements matching Article 10’s meet the parking needs of their residents on-site with the amount of parking they have. Some have extra spaces that they rent.<br />
<br />
We know that the multi-family parking lots surveyed by the Committee had an average vacancy rate of 25% and some of those locations are actively advertising spaces for rent. <br />
<br />
We know that of the 300 or so publicly available resident overnight parking spaces less than half of them are occupied and that the prices for private overnight rental parking have not increased beyond cost of living increases in the last decade.<br />
<br />
We know the Article 10 proposed rates are consistent with other peer communities who also have over night parking bans, including Newton’s 1.25 and Arlington’s 1.3 spaces per unit. <br />
<br />
We know the proposed rates are consistent with professional standards for similar settings, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s 1.0 to 1.2 per unit and the Urban Land Institute’s 1.2 – 1.4. Our current parking requirements exceed even recommended suburban standards for multi-family housing.<br />
<br />
We know that some multi-family buildings predate the auto era and were built without parking, we also know that enterprising property owners have creatively met the parking needs for these buildings. Signs asking for parking or selling available parking are a sign that spaces in the underground market are turning over, not of desperation.<br />
<br />
Requiring extra parking to be built in new buildings is not an effective or efficient means to add to the public parking pool. New building parking is not necessarily built where extra parking is needed. Many new buildings limit access to their garage areas, so that expensive extra parking represents a huge waste of money and resources. It passes the cost of parking onto the buyers and residents of the new buildings. <br />
<br />
The Parking Committee’s recommendation to lower residential parking rates was based on the totality of all these findings and more. The recommended requirements in Article 10 are above the minimums that were in the primary proposal considered by the Parking Committee’s regulatory sub-committee. They are based on the number of vehicles residents say they own, sorted by housing type and size, and include a 25% positive margin of error.<br />
<br />
The proposed rates work because a building’s population is a microcosm of the population as a whole, containing singles, couples, families and friends at different stages in their life, with varying needs for parking. Building to the average, with a moderate upward cushion factor built in, is how we meet resident’s parking need without over or under building parking. <br />
<br />
It seems every time Brookline’s parking requirements are assessed by transportation professionals, the recommendation is the same, they are too high. For instance, in the Coolidge Corner District Plan pg. 67, which reports the consultants findings it says: “Coolidge Corner typifies what is meant by TOD, with the exception of parking standards for new development. As outlined earlier in this section, zoning amendments to reduce parking requirements for new development…should be considered as revisions to the Zoning Bylaw.”<br />
<br />
At the well attended Brookline Parking Forum held on June 9th 2008, Jason Schrieber of the Transportation Planning firm Nelson/Nygaard noted that Brookline’s residential parking rates were 25 to 50% higher than other greater Boston communities. He then presented examples of recent residential projects built in Boston neighborhoods, the Alewife area of Cambridge, and Arlington, all of which were within 1/2 miles of transit. Parking provided for these projects ranged from .69 to 1.23 spaces per dwelling unit. <br />
<br />
Research has been cited that concludes that removing or lowering parking requirements allows for increased density and that areas putting in new transit lines see an increase in land values, drawing wealthy residents who bring vehicles. Well this is precisely what happened in Brookline at the end of the 19th century. The trolley line was put in down Beacon St. and suddenly it became possible to live in an apartment building close to the T. Land values increased and new development possibilities were created. Those case studies are about areas that are trying to create new areas of transit oriented development, not places like Brookline where history has built the form for us. But, the point of needing to match the parking requirements to the built form still holds true. Imposing suburban parking requirements onto an already densely built setting wrecks havoc to the built form. <br />
<br />
Yes, parking is a complex subject. Yes, we will continue to debate and study it. Yes, there are other zoning reforms we should undertake. But re-setting our minimum parking requirements to levels in harmony with our built form, vehicle ownership and peer communities will not bring Armageddon and it is ultimately a policy choice. The intent of Article 10 was to restore the balance between space for our cars and the spaces we live in. Resetting our parking requirements will give our regulators the ability to demand better design, preservation and protection of our neighborhoods.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-27839948631424687372010-09-24T20:53:00.000-04:002010-09-24T20:53:48.303-04:00Article 10 for Fall Town MeetingArticle 10 would lower the amount of off-street parking required for multi-family residential development. Below is some general background information on the Article, and you can follow the link below to download the full text and explanation. Please feel free to write to me with any questions or comments. I will be using this blog to post information and updates about the article as we approach Town Meeting, which begins Tuesday, November 16. <br />
<br />
Passage of any zoning change requires a 2/3 majority vote in Town Meeting, which is a difficult threshold to meet. Therefore, it is important for anyone in favor of this measure to call or write your Town Meeting representatives. Download a full listing of <a href="http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=275&Itemid=404">Town Meeting Member's contact information</a> by clicking Town Meeting Members A-Z on the right. You can <a href="http://gisweb.brooklinema.gov/WhereAmI/">determine your Precinct</a> here, if you don't know it by typing in your address.<br />
<br />
It is also very important that supporters voice their support in person at the various review meetings that occur prior to Town Meeting. This is the public's chance to express their thoughts. Direct input from the public is very influential to those Committee members considering Town policy. Please show your support for lower parking requirements by attending these upcoming meetings. <br />
<br />
Upcoming meetings:<br />
<br />
<b>Zoning By-Law Committee</b><br />
Monday, September 27, 2010<br />
6:30 pm Room 103 Brookline Town Hall<br />
<br />
Notes: The meeting begins at 6:30, but there are four other articles that will be discussed prior to Article 10, interested parties should arrive by 7:30, although it is possible the order may be changed. <br />
<br />
<b>Planning Board</b><br />
Thursday, September 30, 2010<br />
7:30 pm 6th Floor Selectman's Hearing Room Brookline Town Hall<br />
Send Comments to <a href="mailto:PSelkoe@brooklinema.gov">Polly Selkoe</a>. Make sure you put Article 10 Comments for Planning Board in Subject line and ask her to distribute your comments. <br />
Notes: The meeting begins at 7:30, but there are four other articles that will be presented prior to Article 10, interested parties should arrive by 8:30.<br />
<br />
<b>Advisory Committee/ Planning and Regulatory Sub-Committee</b><br />
Monday, October 4, 2010<br />
7:30 pm Rm 103 Brookline Town Hall<br />
Send Comments to <a href="mailto:neilw@rcn.com">Neil Wishinsky</a>. Make sure you put Article 10 Comments in your Subject Line and ask him to distribute your comments to the Committee. <br />
<br />
I'm proposing Article 10 for Fall Town Meeting. My proposal would lower the off-street parking requirements for multi-family residential parking. Right now, Brookline's Zoning By-law requires 2 or 2.3 parking spaces for every multi-family dwelling unit built, even studio and one-bedroom units near transit. Each parking space requires 330 sq. ft. of space, so in the case of small units, the amount of space devoted to parking is close to the size of the unit!<br />
<br />
My proposal would lower the minimum parking required to between 0.8 to 1.4 spaces per unit, depending on the size of the unit. These rates are very similar to the parking requirements in Brookline's By-law from 1962 to 1986, namely 0.8 to 1.3. Prior to 1962, the only parking requirement was the one space per multi-family unit that has been required since 1922.<br />
<br />
It was only recently that two substantial increases, one in 1987 and then another in 2000 brought our requirements to their current peak of 2 and 2.3 spaces per unit. The new proposed rates have been crafted to reflect Brookline-specific auto-ownership and travel behavior for each dwelling unit type. <br />
<br />
A full text of the Article and a detailed explanation (two separate files) can be downloaded from the Town of Brookline website here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=751&Itemid=654">Town Meeting Warrant Articles and Explanations</a><br />
<br />
Our existing requirements exceed those common in suburban locations, where the only way to get anywhere is to drive a car. Brookline is not like this, which is one of the reasons so many of us find it such a desirable place to live. We have options. We can walk or bike to our neighborhood stores, schools and parks and we can take public transit to employment, culture and recreation.<br />
<br />
Our history as a streetcar suburb created the land use pattern we find so pleasingly human scaled. Blocks are small, houses are close together, concentrated pedestrian commercial areas surrounded by leafy neighborhoods. Denser housing nearest the T lines. It all happened before the automobile became ubiquitous. An auto-oriented development pattern would look quite different. This is for one simple fact: automobiles take up a great deal of space. They spend 95% of their time parked and for each car there exists approximately 4 parking spaces.<br />
<br />
The negatives of requiring too much parking have become apparent, we:<br />
<br />
1) <b>Lose more of our limited green and open space</b> to pavement for excess parking we don't need.<br />
<br />
2) <b>Threaten Historic Structures.</b> Re-use or expansion of existing buildings becomes impossible with the high parking requirements, thereby incentivizing the tearing down of historic buildings.<br />
<br />
3) <b>Degrade building design</b>. First floors become parking. Facades become garage fronts and side yards are driveways. Buildings become taller and bigger to recoup the cost of the parking and to accommodate the sq. footage desired on the same lot.<br />
<br />
4) <b>Decrease Housing Diversity. </b>The extra costs of the parking are added onto the cost of housing, smaller units are not built and the continuing maintenance costs are born by residents. Occupants are not given the opportunity to save household transportation expenditures from opting out of purchasing excess parking.<br />
<br />
5) <b>Incentivize Auto Use and Degrade Pedestrian Environment</b>. Mandating excess parking encourages excess auto ownership, shifting individuals away from other modes. More autos, driveways, curb cuts and garages makes it harder and less pleasant to walk.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqN1bHYnyR42MgWM-X0p24siNApOCVpGS9nNADE_ZS86JPUKMumidOAATu-XpvqTUH37xeuMp7C8wZUzAi9zJyAYfRhqg7iLTIyRWU-fq2MjEY3OSILwAIINK9K6s9Ik48_5sFnuejDyNr/s1600/TM_VehPerHousehold.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqN1bHYnyR42MgWM-X0p24siNApOCVpGS9nNADE_ZS86JPUKMumidOAATu-XpvqTUH37xeuMp7C8wZUzAi9zJyAYfRhqg7iLTIyRWU-fq2MjEY3OSILwAIINK9K6s9Ik48_5sFnuejDyNr/s320/TM_VehPerHousehold.jpg" /></a></div>Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-69232468301427520612010-08-21T08:29:00.003-04:002010-08-29T21:01:05.080-04:00Visit Brookline Park(ing) Day, 2010!!!!<span style="font-size: large;">September 17, 2010 is Park(ing) Day</span>,<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Join us in Coolidge Corner for a day of fun in the "Park"</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwTbUPG8IRfjQqL664OaX_VlF8mweureU777UryMx-YuD-sR7OMvO-7VLSBbVWjmxXzFNHtXab3OpSFI5XVenW1XSOr4L5puIDJChvOh0Q6-E8iGsPfFcbZ5PjzZEqTBXBDBMWdQq6JTf1/s1600/poster2010_hostedby.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwTbUPG8IRfjQqL664OaX_VlF8mweureU777UryMx-YuD-sR7OMvO-7VLSBbVWjmxXzFNHtXab3OpSFI5XVenW1XSOr4L5puIDJChvOh0Q6-E8iGsPfFcbZ5PjzZEqTBXBDBMWdQq6JTf1/s320/poster2010_hostedby.jpg" /></a></div> What is Park(ing) Day?<br />
<br />
It's an annual worldwide celebration where metered parking spaces are transformed into temporary parks for the public good.<br />
<br />
Originally invented in 2005 by Rebar, a San Francisco art and design studio, Park(ing) Day asks the question, "What if we took the 200 sq. ft. of space normally dedicated exclusively to parked cars and reinterpreted it as a usable public space?<br />
<br />
Brookline's Park(ing) Day parks will be located on both sides of Harvard St., just north of the Green St. pedestrian cross walk.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjErVsh8exf4c02YKWb92aF-Nd329C4EMZvppWnXKhWUx2AFRTyV1xOTaz-JRcrrCEXvmMI4o_PxLgY8rMIYy2UTCQlVSlUEW2YJr0uxZw_CEbSICmooP13rtRHEGgREgJ7XmQx9CeAImOE/s1600/Park-1---Coolidge-Theater--.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjErVsh8exf4c02YKWb92aF-Nd329C4EMZvppWnXKhWUx2AFRTyV1xOTaz-JRcrrCEXvmMI4o_PxLgY8rMIYy2UTCQlVSlUEW2YJr0uxZw_CEbSICmooP13rtRHEGgREgJ7XmQx9CeAImOE/s320/Park-1---Coolidge-Theater--.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In front of Upper Crust and CC Theater by Derrick Choi</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
In front of Upper Crust Pizza and the Coolidge Corner Theater there will be a colorful activity center with games and "movies" showing pavement to parks improvements from around the country.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNEUmBDMLAqVGJWZAtCshaNSMMDPhrCHw_Ch8UlTfOwZjhZf61oQXZA9u_Y59CbwLiXpaRRbvHXf4zQdTq1rPHq-TEY6Fui1I3lcn6olvv-WzzotESFqlJCpA6sBhaboug-F5yAUKdFvKL/s1600/Park-2---Friendly's1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNEUmBDMLAqVGJWZAtCshaNSMMDPhrCHw_Ch8UlTfOwZjhZf61oQXZA9u_Y59CbwLiXpaRRbvHXf4zQdTq1rPHq-TEY6Fui1I3lcn6olvv-WzzotESFqlJCpA6sBhaboug-F5yAUKdFvKL/s320/Park-2---Friendly's1.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In front of Friendly's by Derrick Choi</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Across the street, in front of Friendly's there will be an urban oasis where visitors can sit on the grass or in a beach chair and dangle their toes in the water or play in the sand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
An underlying theme of Park(ing) Day parks is the exploration of the fact that approximately 80% of the public space in an urbanized setting is the street, which is usually the exclusive domain of the automobile. If we want to enliven our streets and make more accommodation for people places, we might be able to find a way to share the valuable public space of the street.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhms827Ir4FGwCZPQxUc4JSamSPCfjZIFkAI_h8YJV6CHsGWswpHIe5mcppHDJA0ytsK1L-WCn0e5anUSv6Xonj0soWQsmLmRWUMTxw8cxcmaFAnPt1iDVkvywZ-3nu5HL1UCni1cnAhnD4/s1600/poster2010_collector.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhms827Ir4FGwCZPQxUc4JSamSPCfjZIFkAI_h8YJV6CHsGWswpHIe5mcppHDJA0ytsK1L-WCn0e5anUSv6Xonj0soWQsmLmRWUMTxw8cxcmaFAnPt1iDVkvywZ-3nu5HL1UCni1cnAhnD4/s320/poster2010_collector.jpg" /></a></div>Our goal is to enliven our commercial area and create fun interactive people spaces that make it enjoyable to spend time "in<br />
the street". Brookline's Park(ing) Day is sponsored and supported by the <a href="http://www.brooklinegreenspace.org/">Brookline GreenSpace Alliance</a>, Brookline Garden Club, <a href="http://www.livablestreets.info/">Livable Streets</a>, <a href="http://www.walkboston.org/">WalkBoston</a>, <a href="http://www.brooklinema.gov/parks">Brookline Park's Department</a>, <a href="http://www.brooklinema.gov/transportation">Brookline Transportation Department</a> and Transportation Board.<br />
<br />
Park(ing) Day has captured the collective imagination. In 2009, there were 700 parks in 144 cities, in 21 countries on 6 continents and 2010 promises to be even bigger. To learn more about the movement in general, visit <a href="http://www.parkingday.org/">www.parkingday.org</a>.<br />
<br />
To help create or staff Brookline's Park(ing) Day, please contact me! (See the email me button to the left!)<br />
<br />
Hope to see you in the "park"!<br />
<br />
[where: 02446]Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-11614052676953246642010-07-09T17:36:00.005-04:002010-07-10T13:54:27.381-04:00Over-Building Brookline: One "Preservation" at a Timeor Extreme Building: The New Normal? In my previous post, I wrote about the threat to our historic homes from development interests looking to tear down homes in order to extract maximum value from the high cost housing market in Brookline. An older home is found and purchased often in a distressed or stressed sale condition, which can then be replaced by a multi-unit building. In a recent Boston Globe article entitled "Neighbors Decry Development of Historic Sites", Jeffrey Feuerman is quoted as saying, "You can get a bigger project with more units with a demolition". He went on to say that, "...Keeping the historic elements of such properties is not prohibitively more expensive than tearing them down and starting fresh, it takes longer, often included expensive surprises, is harder to build and is less attractive to buyers". (This coming from the same individual who was listing his preservation award winning, three bedroom unit in a renovated 1855 carriage house on Harvard Avenue for more than 1.5 million.) I don't know about you, but I know plenty of buyers who place a premium on authentic historic architecture and character.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkwGImF4O8-v-sGd_SbIy6LTInmFxg-YxBxj4t1XEJH79OaEu9BqmcumBQe-aHgtbuTZsDrSb9F-P8-qkzYvMpr9tj1k3ryQdNOltD2WiiJkhJhx5iZRTqTOUauicIM6YLkZ5oFML5CpYd/s1600/Historic70Sewall.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkwGImF4O8-v-sGd_SbIy6LTInmFxg-YxBxj4t1XEJH79OaEu9BqmcumBQe-aHgtbuTZsDrSb9F-P8-qkzYvMpr9tj1k3ryQdNOltD2WiiJkhJhx5iZRTqTOUauicIM6YLkZ5oFML5CpYd/s320/Historic70Sewall.png" /></a></div><br />
<br />
As a further point in favor of demolition, Feuerman went on to say that "single family homes on such sites means much lower tax collections than a new multi-unit building. A quality condominium complex will also translate into higher property values for nearby properties. A single-family is not the highest and best functional use of the property." Spoken like a true developer. However, his claims about value are questionable. When the adjoining property's views, light, air and trees are removed to make way for these new condos, it clearly diminishes that property's value. When the street scape is harmed by the loss of front yards, historic homes and trees, some of the publics' collective ownership value is taken. There will come a point when Brookline will lose enough of these things that the "quality of life" premium that property owners in Brookline enjoy will be gone. "Highest and best use" means only that use that will make the most money for the individual property owner or developer. It fails to account for what is most valuable or best for the Community. Further, while tax collections may be a bit higher for condominiums rather than a single family house, there are increased costs to the town associated with additional residential development too, which may or may not be off set by the increased tax revenue, such as Schools, police, fire, open space and recreation, libraries, trash, roads, etc. It is not a clear "win" for the Town fiscally, and clearly not a win for abutters, whose property values are in fact more likely to decline. <br />
<br />
My point here is not to say that all new development is bad. But it is to say that we need to think critically when we hear these "truisms", like "highest and best use" bandied about. But more importantly, we need to recognize, protect, and build upon the amazing assets we do have. The historic landscapes and neighborhoods, planned and designed by some of the most brilliant and talented designers to have walked on the planet. These are our assets, and if we lose these, or degrade them beyond recognition, we will have lost the beauty and soul of what makes this place so desirable to begin with. <br />
<br />
In response to the community's distress about losing some truly priceless pieces of historic architecture, (many of which play a key role in defining our community character), a new "model" has been proposed. In the same Boston Globe article cited above, Scott Gladstone is quoted as saying, "the hope was to start a trend in Brookline where old houses are preserved, and Jeff Levine, Brookline's Planning Director proposed using 99 Winchester St. as a model". Let's look at 99 Winchester St. from above, to give us a sense of site design and scale.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8eLhLd5RJBMSWROW0iba5qPXz0249ZpndRix46cmmELZzCEDhkrqGT1TxzBgPlcp5NnHB4uOzgTsXll-Lo7jcjkAQoVFIe_IBXynwfdWkHxhY5WawU6CHJp2Gut3f7O6LpYvNkj1Mhz5L/s1600/99+Winchester.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8eLhLd5RJBMSWROW0iba5qPXz0249ZpndRix46cmmELZzCEDhkrqGT1TxzBgPlcp5NnHB4uOzgTsXll-Lo7jcjkAQoVFIe_IBXynwfdWkHxhY5WawU6CHJp2Gut3f7O6LpYvNkj1Mhz5L/s320/99+Winchester.png" /></a></div><br />
<br />
99 Winchester is in the center of the image, the reddish building with the turret. As you can see, the renovated house has a large addition on the back, which seems to be built extremely close to the property line, completely filling up all available space on the lot. (Lot lines are in yellow). While this scenario may be lucrative for the developer, it clearly comes at a price to the community, in terms of declining values to surrounding properties, due to the loss of open space, loss of light, air, sky views and trees.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggI3h-dJRx35D9wGK87SxFHoNGhRYfIrUIZdKAY8-MLAex3TxoHdCEaQZjx2F2JsMOatm1lRk3RxytZpLcGEHPprQLWzMkqrvFHPPxDaHuIsFPlKxsvfpXxojwd2HOV41LYUiLqyWxCzsi/s1600/70+Sewall+Street+View.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggI3h-dJRx35D9wGK87SxFHoNGhRYfIrUIZdKAY8-MLAex3TxoHdCEaQZjx2F2JsMOatm1lRk3RxytZpLcGEHPprQLWzMkqrvFHPPxDaHuIsFPlKxsvfpXxojwd2HOV41LYUiLqyWxCzsi/s320/70+Sewall+Street+View.png" /></a></div>The idea behind the Winchester model is that the preservation of the house is such a great benefit to the community that it justifies extreme violation of our zoning by-law, thereby allowing for the granting of special permits, etc. The proposal pictured above, 70 Sewall, requires 9 special permits/variances. It is not to object to special permits per se that I raise my concerns. It was expected that some "wiggle room" was needed to make an adaptive re-use project work. But it has gone far beyond "wiggle room". While no one wishes to see these historic structures destroyed, I believe the developers proposing these scenarios, are in fact going beyond any reasonable standard with their proposals, taking advantage of the Town's desire to preserve the house and using the threat of demolition to go to extremes. Convincing us that they are making a sacrifice by preserving the house. When in fact, the proposed development becomes extremely valuable. The historic structure is saved, adding beauty, character and quality that no new construction could ever achieve and a super-sized addition is allowed, even though it violates all minimum standards of sound building and planning practices. Because we are so afraid of demolition, we fail to realize the truth of the fact that even with demolition, a new full build FAR building would not fit on this lot either. In fact, in the case of the 70 Sewall proposal, (above) a building of only 1.14 FAR (not the full 1.5 allowed) would fit, and even then this assumes underground parking and a height variance.<br />
<br />
A look at the site plan for the 70 Sewall project reveals the full extent of the site design violations.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHt1HsxnBMcUe9zJlNOl8Zr-843uZiYf8QCc5QcoE1lDhrI7R7Y-BUGh299Lzx3qcxXwlQ_xGxaecNXmeV9a5qZHzgTW1nO3kgWgJr1Ck6BEn_C9_MpZygEu_MHM2HLvqXHBZoOoa3Jjqd/s1600/Site+Plan+70+Sewall.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHt1HsxnBMcUe9zJlNOl8Zr-843uZiYf8QCc5QcoE1lDhrI7R7Y-BUGh299Lzx3qcxXwlQ_xGxaecNXmeV9a5qZHzgTW1nO3kgWgJr1Ck6BEn_C9_MpZygEu_MHM2HLvqXHBZoOoa3Jjqd/s320/Site+Plan+70+Sewall.png" /></a></div><br />
Side yards are reduced to 4', at the smallest point the rear setback is 36". These miniscule setbacks are insufficient to allow adequate light, sky views, and freedom from shadows for the abutters. They will not function in terms of safely accommodating circulation of persons or machinery. There is not sufficient space to support plant life to aid in buffering the building from neighbors.<br />
<br />
The historic house is moved forward on the lot 15 ft. Fundamentally changing the setting of the house, alters one's view and experience of the house from the sidewalk and street. It is no longer the same house. The 36” oak tree at the front of the property is unlikely to survive the movement of the house. In addition, four other 10”- 12” trees are slated for removal from the property. New trees that are proposed would in fact grow onto adjoining property, would be difficult if not impossible to maintain and would also so severely limit circulation on the site due to the close proximity to the building that they seem impractical. Given the extremely dense development in the area, the value of these trees as softening, humanizing elements cannot be overstated. Key historic elements are being altered or eliminated from the house. Only 245 sq. ft. of usable open space remain on the property. The scale and mass of the addition overwhelmes and dwarfs the original structure, the beautiful 1889 Schweinfurth designed Queen Anne house.<br />
<br />
Our Town boards and staff have forgotten that the maximum size (or Floor Area Ratio) allowed in a given zone is just that, a maximum, not a de facto right, and that at least basic standards of safety, functionality and protection of abutters must be maintained. These are the core functions and purpose of zoning.<br />
<br />
The question then becomes, does the partial "preservation" of this house justify the extreme violation of our Zoning By-law and by extension the rights and privileges of the citizen's of Brookline? Has Extreme Building become the New Normal?<br />
<br />
It seems to be catching on. Jeffrey Feuerman has submitted his plans for a project at 59 Green St. Here we see a two family home being turned into one giant condominium and another giant condominium being added onto the back, resulting in a long narrow housing development stuck into the back yard, next to homes with open back yards. This too was a case where demolition was threatened before the Preservation Commission stepped in.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwbsLXvVizjGNQcw5tbA_fvwkiWo6gte7HcDZhAP9YW1oOrPnjbjGgqA0tgQtW79Ba1w5DmUKR2kkqfC76sJJBXAN8WCbEVrML3StDm99T5kkBzVe5MqC2jfCgX8wBNweFbQCk4Lxzc97R/s1600/59Green_elevs1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwbsLXvVizjGNQcw5tbA_fvwkiWo6gte7HcDZhAP9YW1oOrPnjbjGgqA0tgQtW79Ba1w5DmUKR2kkqfC76sJJBXAN8WCbEVrML3StDm99T5kkBzVe5MqC2jfCgX8wBNweFbQCk4Lxzc97R/s320/59Green_elevs1.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-_HRKPk6jzM3K8gE3Ue55QAYk78q5hc_oADdJKINsR20OYQP2oKwTFUxraFC4zNzSXD_AkUDOnYbcJZ8BimxiEw7HvnSL9YyvLBqPudvnYs0hyphenhyphenFYNh2hpUR46-a_IY2lxrMnBup_BmRTa/s1600/59Green_plans1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-_HRKPk6jzM3K8gE3Ue55QAYk78q5hc_oADdJKINsR20OYQP2oKwTFUxraFC4zNzSXD_AkUDOnYbcJZ8BimxiEw7HvnSL9YyvLBqPudvnYs0hyphenhyphenFYNh2hpUR46-a_IY2lxrMnBup_BmRTa/s320/59Green_plans1.jpg" /></a></div>Both of these proposals will be discussed at the upcoming Planning Board meeting next Thursday, July 15 in room 111 at Brookline Town Hall, starting at approximately 8:00 pm. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-74059404442036636182010-05-03T15:15:00.000-04:002010-05-03T15:15:10.527-04:00The Stretch Energy Code: It's Good for BrooklineArticle 11 on this Spring's Town Meeting agenda would strengthen the energy efficiency portion of Brookline's Building Code. The standards have been set to be easily attainable, predictable, and desirable. I won't go into all of the details here, for more information, please visit the <a href="http://www.brooklinema.gov/">town website</a> and look for Stretch Code Information.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz3u_aK3KczQ-zpQn_uO63DF6onWxkWLR6UtyS8-mPcvfB_RxHuyG2hqF1nk-Q2vVV5jfagyF-CouDQM1oB-kQLPV2nsJzhsvP_WTPu_5_vBcVPtKVo7zWCda9pIcKJ4iSecAJzYtz2_SJ/s1600/images-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz3u_aK3KczQ-zpQn_uO63DF6onWxkWLR6UtyS8-mPcvfB_RxHuyG2hqF1nk-Q2vVV5jfagyF-CouDQM1oB-kQLPV2nsJzhsvP_WTPu_5_vBcVPtKVo7zWCda9pIcKJ4iSecAJzYtz2_SJ/s200/images-2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<br />
I believe that adopting the Stretch Energy Code is good for Brookline for several important reasons:<br />
<br />
1) <span style="font-size: small;"><b>Greater energy efficiency saves money for Brookline's residents and businesses. </b></span><br />
<br />
Let's face it, energy is going to get more expensive. Even at today's prices, the small additional costs associated with the additional Stretch Code compliant efficiency improvements are quickly paid back through energy use savings. <br />
<br />
2) <b>Less energy use is better for the environment and reduces our dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels.</b><br />
<br />
Conservation is a key component to any policy or technological strategy that reduce harmful emissions and slows our consumption of energy resources. Here in the Northeast, heating and cooling our homes and commercial buildings contributes significantly to our energy use. In Brookline, about 60% of our total greenhouse gas emissions are from residential buildings.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij0S28D-ofo4-yVLDNYwxgARbL6Q2hQQLMIx5hCy_K20Qj4B5mfUy_6PF4YhD7IVxWPTfS2UUZiqmIaiIzI03idyW6qyeMi6o0QFZ1qDHPQSOrZWDZE_qOPoreormp2nBS5eFjjgnogBum/s1600/images-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij0S28D-ofo4-yVLDNYwxgARbL6Q2hQQLMIx5hCy_K20Qj4B5mfUy_6PF4YhD7IVxWPTfS2UUZiqmIaiIzI03idyW6qyeMi6o0QFZ1qDHPQSOrZWDZE_qOPoreormp2nBS5eFjjgnogBum/s320/images-1.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<b>3) Home owners and builders achieve consumer protections, receiving verified levels of energy efficiency.</b><br />
<br />
Required energy efficiency measures are determined and verified through a 3rd party professional modeling and testing procedure, or through the installation, from a check list, of specified product types and construction techniques. Therefore, the consumer, in this case either a home owner or builder, is assured that the finished building will in fact meet the energy efficiency standard. This knowledge will surely become valuable information to prospective buyers and tenants as they rightly compare the "operating" costs of various property purchase options.<br />
<br />
<b>4) Savvy tenants and buyers are seeking energy efficient buildings.</b><br />
<br />
It is in Brookline's best interest to position itself as a community that understands and promotes energy efficient, quality building. Doing so will attract residents and businesses with long term objectives who value stability and continued viability.<b> </b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>5) Adopting the Stretch Code gets us closer to becoming a Green Community.</b><br />
<br />
As a result of the recently passed Green Communities Act state legislation, a Green Communities Division (within EOEEA) was created. Their mission is to establish and administer the Green Communities program, whereby cities and towns can adopt certain energy conservation or renewable energy generation policies and in return gain access to grant monies to pay for all manner of energy efficiency, management, conservation and renewable energy generation projects. Access to these funds would allow Brookline to be on the forefront of implementing state of the art energy saving projects.<b> </b>Becoming a Green Community could benefit Brookline both directly through grant monies for projects and secondarily through energy cost savings.<br />
<br />
Some of the frequently cited objections to adopting the Stretch Code are principally founded on a faulty understanding of the Code's applicability. For instance it's been stated:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>We can't afford to place an additional cost burden on home owners/businesses at this time.</li>
</ul>The Stretch Code does not require anyone to make any changes to their existing home or HVAC systems. It does become relevant when an individual builds an addition or changes out windows or furnaces, but only applies to those things being replaced. If you choose to change one window, that new window must be an Energy Star window. You will not be required to replace all your windows or change anything else about your home. As stated previously, the additional cost associated with the higher energy efficiency is quickly paid back. Also, there are frequently utility rebates available to help home owners and businesses make energy improvements, as well as federal and state tax incentives.<br />
<ul><li>If Brookline adopts the Stretch Code we will drive away certain contractors who don't want to deal with the new requirements and this will hurt our competitiveness relative to surrounding communities.</li>
</ul>The improved building practices embodied in the stretch code are already being adopted by quality builders and will be required in a few years anyway. The resulting buildings are the ones that buyers and tenants are seeking in the market place. Therefore assuring this higher standard of building actually helps Brookline's competitiveness. As of April 28, 2010 18 communities have adopted the Stretch Code, with many more considering the option this spring. Newton and Cambridge have already adopted it and Boston has it's own high level energy efficient building standards.<br />
<ul><li>Extra energy efficiency measures will require me to make inappropriate changes to my historic home.</li>
</ul>As stated earlier, no one will be required to make changes or energy improvements to existing buildings because of the Stretch Code. When renovations, additions or new building occurs that triggers the energy portion of the building code, then the Stretch Code will apply. The performance standards can be met in a variety of ways, and do not require changing historic features. Properties listed (or certified as eligible for listing) on the State of Federal historic register or as part of a local historic district or designation are exempt from both the base and Stretch energy codes.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-72797104660695832412010-04-03T12:09:00.000-04:002010-04-03T12:09:44.326-04:00Demolishing Brookline one House at a TimeAs I react to the flurry of demolition requests in and around my neighborhood, I think, this must be what it feels like to be on a volunteer fire department. You try to get on with your everyday life, yet your antennae is up, ready to receive the alarm at any moment. You and your comrades run to the scene of impending devastation and you do what you can. Once in a while you are victorious, at least to some degree, and the dreaded devastation is kept to a minimum. When this happens, you acknowledge that luck had something to do with it. Your tools are inadequate, your frustration and sense of failure great. A sad heaviness clutches your heart. <br />
<br />
Three months into 2010 and there have been <a href="http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=437&Itemid=161">8 demolition requests for houses in Brookline</a>. Five of these requests have been delayed by the Preservation Commission because the house has been found to be historically significant. These five homes are 70 Sewall, 64 Naples, 163 Kent, 19 Hilltop and 59 Green. Usually, this action simply delays the inevitable, but as our preservation staff has said, "sometimes miracles happen".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0rL_gh0_1ivwQhw0ii6wWdhJEYxbEo55GY1YWYnWa5N6yhGAtc52KBY33YO6aj9COGCqpZ-JLcPuJBVXVi5rEeOf7O7GSstXD0e5X6Eh5q_jIk44guJcQKZp-D6ZX01EY7FUMocBD_v5t/s1600/Historic70Sewall.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0rL_gh0_1ivwQhw0ii6wWdhJEYxbEo55GY1YWYnWa5N6yhGAtc52KBY33YO6aj9COGCqpZ-JLcPuJBVXVi5rEeOf7O7GSstXD0e5X6Eh5q_jIk44guJcQKZp-D6ZX01EY7FUMocBD_v5t/s320/Historic70Sewall.png" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"> 70 Sewall Ave. 1898 Home of Charles Flagg, Architect, Julius A. Schweinfurth</div><br />
It's worth asking the question, why is this happening? It is of course difficult to generalize to all cases, but it is fair to say that for those tear downs that are most disconcerting, i.e. those where significant historic architecture is lost and neighborhood fabric is torn asunder, there are a confluence of particular circumstances. First of course is the high value of land and the high price to be had for housing in Brookline. (i.e. money to be made). Next, is the reality that our zoning allows the construction of buildings much larger than those commonly found in the surrounding neighborhood and, adding to the mismatch with context, the required setbacks do not necessarily match those of neighboring structures. Third, then, if you are a developer, you simply wait for an existing house to lose some of its value through age and neglect, perhaps a death or divorce in the family, (i.e. eager seller) and you have a recipe for a successful tear down and build scenario. Sadly, the result is often the loss of a unique, finely made home that contributed to the beauty and fit the context of the neighborhood. In its place, often comes modern cookie-cutter construction, built to maximum size with minimum amenities. There are no regulatory protections in place to prevent this scenario from happening over and over again throughout our neighborhoods. The higher the density of the underlying zoning, the greater the pressure, or allure, from the developers' point of view. <br />
<br />
Each time this scenario is about to play out, neighbors rally, acutely aware of what's at stake. In vain they look to our Town planning staff and volunteer boards for assistance. They begin to wonder why the potential for this occurrence wasn't anticipated. Why is there such seeming indifference towards protecting what they know to be the key assets of our community? They are told that they can participate in "design review" of the new project, but as this process proceeds they find their influence often limited to superficial aspects of the design of the new building, such as colors or siding materials. The major decisions seem to have already been made by others, elsewhere. These decisions were in fact dictated by rules and regulations already in place, financial considerations and a deference to the rights of the land owner to maximize profit with minimal effort. <br />
<br />
Finding themselves in this situation, citizens often realize that the one remaining regulatory mechanism available to them is the establishment of a Local Historic District. In the best of circumstances, an LHD would be created organically, with plenty of time and care, based on a realization by homeowners and preservation officials of the value of protecting worthwhile properties. This has not been the case in Brookline, where LHD's have become the de facto planning mechanism for neighborhoods who can muster the organization and will to save themselves. We are now hearing from our preservation and planning staff that they are overburdened, they cannot handle another LHD. This is extremely ironic, given the fact that the plethora of LHD's is a symptom of the lack of proactive planning to begin with. Spontaneous, neighborhood lead LHD organizing efforts represent a grass-roots movement to deflect the rapacious churning under of our cultural and built heritage, and yet we do not seem able to commit the necessary resources to facilitate this effort. What does this say about the Town's ability to be stewards of our community?<br />
<br />
What we are seeing played out in this drama is the classic conflict between use value and exchange value. It is really helpful to understand this distinction, for it colors every decision we make about planning and zoning. Our culture and laws seeks a precarious middle road between the two and depending on your perspective you likely value one over the other. The use value of real estate is what everyone who owns a home and lives in it enjoys. They choose their home because of the particulars of the structure as well as purchasing a share in a neighborhood, town, community, school district, etc. with a certain set of assumptions about what that means. They love the look and feel of the street they live on, the park across the street, access to Brookline schools, or their proximity to the T, etc. All of these things factor into the value of their home, both to them and to any one else looking for a place to live. If the park across the street were suddenly paved for a parking lot, their property would lose value. Their homes' value remains anchored to its current use as a home.<br />
<br />
The exchange value of a property however is something else all together, and because of the disparity between the size, scale and form of existing structures and the generous and general standards in our current zoning ordinance, the exchange value of a property is inflated significantly. This gives the owner who does not value the use value, (i.e. they don't live there) a strong incentive to want to tear down and build big. Now, buying the land, tearing down and building new is not cheap, so the developer feels they must max out the sites' potential to get a decent return.<br />
<br />
The problem with all this is that an essential conflict of interests has been created. Maximizing the exchange value by one individual reduces the use value of the remaining properties on the block or in the wider community. That "look and feel" of the street that you bought into when you purchased your home is no longer there. If you believe that that the beautiful historic architecture contributes to the desirability of Brookline as a place to live, then its destruction diminishes the value of housing in Brookline. The private actions and gains of a single land owner has caused negative impacts to ripple out into the community. Zoning is meant to prevent this. Planning boards are meant to act on behalf of the public to protect their interests, to help balance the equation between the maximizing of exchange value and maintenance of use value. It is entirely possible to have regulations in place that would be fair to both parties while giving better guidance on form, size, scale, setback, on-site amenities, etc. generating better results.<br />
<br />
Beyond the "out of scale" etc. issues there is of course the sad fact of tearing down one-of-a-kind craftsmanship and solid, beautiful structures. It is just not possible to build such quality today. Why would it make sense to send it to the landfill? Just look closely at some of the new construction around town and ask yourself if it looks like it will still be viable in 100 + years? We cannot afford to waste these precious resources. It doesn't make sense. Not from an energy point of view, not from a resource and materials point of view, not from a cultural heritage point of view. This level of craftsmanship will never be created again, why throw it away as if it is of no value? And yet, we have no way of "internalizing" this external cost. This thing of great value, (the exquisite craftsmanship and beauty of the historic home's interior and exterior features) has no value in the equation. Unless the developer has sufficient vision and understanding to realize that potential buyers will value and therefore pay a premium for this quality, they are likely to choose quantity over quality for their building plans. <br />
<br />
The LHD mechanism may be, in some cases a clumsy and ill suited "planning" mechanism. Adaptive re-use is a positive. Large single family houses may not be practical for many of today's smaller families and adding additional housing units without tearing down existing structures seems like a good idea. Shifting demographics will create the need for a range of housing alternatives, such as assisted living, co-housing, group living structures, live/work spaces, commercial space, etc. Proactive planning for better neighborhood design need not preclude these options.<br />
<br />
In the meanwhile, I hope you will let your voice be heard if you value these homes and their contribution to our community. Speak out about what their destruction will mean to you and your neighbors.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-4741053510993974772010-02-19T16:25:00.000-05:002010-02-19T16:25:54.804-05:00Rethinking Coolidge Corner Lane Scheme<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB5dYSxPEB6NBfsBqC7YMnxnUpL7oUSm3ufEdXFEsr3EprDnfiJ1KtACcU-G1TMfuHgHg0lE3CVfpnRQesOBFsQ5DkyBJYKi-nqNJk82QNdFbWnxVrwKN3m7M6qhoMF1HJq95-rRiX9uZn/s1600-h/SWBeacon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB5dYSxPEB6NBfsBqC7YMnxnUpL7oUSm3ufEdXFEsr3EprDnfiJ1KtACcU-G1TMfuHgHg0lE3CVfpnRQesOBFsQ5DkyBJYKi-nqNJk82QNdFbWnxVrwKN3m7M6qhoMF1HJq95-rRiX9uZn/s320/SWBeacon.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">I have some serious concerns about the latest Transportation Board proposal for lane changes at the Harvard/Beacon intersection at Coolidge Corner. </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkxjMFoH2rwXm-Yx6CchC6WuSZNQfJR9TMF527zQWVVjlJmrpx3ogpoVehuXlQwCpw-nMtf_BfQ8kA5aaZqxX6Nf1kkO3BXXXAdpUwITrZu6sQD8oa-i-KcqFkJP25A_RQrLc479SERIwx/s1600-h/Pedestrians.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkxjMFoH2rwXm-Yx6CchC6WuSZNQfJR9TMF527zQWVVjlJmrpx3ogpoVehuXlQwCpw-nMtf_BfQ8kA5aaZqxX6Nf1kkO3BXXXAdpUwITrZu6sQD8oa-i-KcqFkJP25A_RQrLc479SERIwx/s320/Pedestrians.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU8_i7ghp22HVNvsaNYZdV3mi1OVOxjWb4ZX5dwWhQypwybK8QQN0iR5HmwCYt2FEwO2NRsKSJaFNYkaUx_8NnBCHSPGAkG9nu1Gc6IdMdatkMdhtfebszrZmS7S87jYUd07fzsJPyVYju/s1600-h/WalkSignalCrop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU8_i7ghp22HVNvsaNYZdV3mi1OVOxjWb4ZX5dwWhQypwybK8QQN0iR5HmwCYt2FEwO2NRsKSJaFNYkaUx_8NnBCHSPGAkG9nu1Gc6IdMdatkMdhtfebszrZmS7S87jYUd07fzsJPyVYju/s320/WalkSignalCrop.jpg" width="234" /></a></div><span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">The most recently proposed plan, to reduce the number of southbound Harvard Street lanes to one on the north side of Beacon St., remove the median on this same side of the intersection and add an additional northbound lane, has come about as a result of focusing entirely on trying to solve the problem of gridlock or “blocking” that occurs regularly at this intersection. While this is a serious problem, I do not think the proposed solution will be effective, nor does it address the most prominent contributing factor. However, in addition to these shortcomings, I fear we have overlooked some of the serious negative consequences likely to result from this narrowly focused attempt to “fix the problem”. </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">We can surely all agree that there is a heavy volume of vehicle traffic flowing North on Harvard St. Beyond this point, I fear there are as many opinions as there are individuals. My professional experience leads me to the conclusion that there are two principle reasons why the traffic fails to clear the intersection before the green signal activates (and then frustrates) the westbound Beacon St. flows. Number one is the simple fact that two lanes of traffic must merge into one. Allowing a bit more space for this to occur by having an additional lane accepting traffic on the far side of the intersection will not sufficiently accommodate the merging traffic. To complicate things, your proposal retains curbside parking here. While I support maintaining the parking for its traffic calming and pedestrian buffer functions, the “friction” caused by parking vehicles and the inevitable double parkers will minimize the effectiveness of the scheme you are proposing if your goal was to maximize traffic flow through this bottle neck. </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">A much more effective solution would be to eliminate the two to one lane merge all together by making the northbound right hand lane on the south side of Harvard for right turns and buses only. That way only one through lane would be crossing Beacon St. to begin with. Yes, this will extend queue’s on Harvard St. A don’t block the box treatment and enforcement would be necessary at Longwood. Otherwise, there is sufficient storage capacity for the resulting queue. Yes, traffic will back up on Harvard, it already does, but the “flow” will be regulated before it enters the intersection at Beacon and the problem will be eliminated. </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Another contributing factor to the gridlock problem relates to the width of Beacon St. It appears that the signal timing does not adequately compensate for this. It appears that some vehicles entering the intersection on the yellow (and sometimes red) do not have adequate time to travel the full distance to clear the intersection, regardless of or made worse by the delay at the merge. If the clearance time were lengthened, that is if the signal on Beacon St. simply stayed red longer, drivers would be spared the frustration. </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Even if, after considering my comments you still believe the proposed changes will work for the limited goal of moving more vehicles through this very small segment of our roadway network, I ask that we take a moment to stand back and ask ourselves what our overall goal should be and what the wider consequences from this change may be. </span><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Coolidge Corner is, for many a vital transportation and commercial hub. Thousands of commuters from the T stream through daily, stopping at shops and restaurants on their way. Thousands more visit daily from home on foot. It is for their comfort and safety that I object to this scheme. The median in the middle of Harvard Street is a vital refuge for many a pedestrian, especially those who have difficulty speedily crossing in front of impatient drivers. I think it should be extended rather than eliminated. Consider also the effect of combining the through and right turn lane in the southbound direction. Who hasn’t been walking across the street, only to hear the car behind the car waiting for you lay on its horn? The volume of pedestrians is heavy at this intersection. We should be really glad for the high pedestrian volume because if each one those people were in a car, they would be taking up 60 times more space than they do on foot, none of us would be going anywhere. </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Because of the heavy volume of pedestrians, right turning vehicles will sometimes wait a long time before they can turn, thus blocking the through travel. How patient will those drivers be after waiting through a light or two? How safe, comfortable or relaxed will the pedestrian crossing the street in front of those drivers be? </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Already, the automobile is favored over the pedestrian at this intersection. There is no protected pedestrian phase, despite the heavy pedestrian volume. Many times car drivers play dodgem trying to turn through a group of pedestrians. All of this is particularly menacing for elderly or disabled people. Most people have no idea that they must press the very distant button (which is often blocked by snow mounds) to get a walk signal. They either wait and wait, or finally give up and go. This is especially problematic for parents with young children who are trying to teach their kids how to cross safely using the signal. If we make it more difficult and dangerous and unpleasant to walk, which I think this scheme does, we are “shooting ourselves in the foot” in terms of mitigating congestion or maximizing the capacity of our infrastructure, as walkers will take to cars because they no longer feel safe. Infrastructure is a precursor to activity. Make room for more cars and you get more cars. Make it more pleasant to walk and more people will walk. It is that simple. Make Coolidge Corner more people friendly and you get more people. </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Paying attention to and giving greater accommodation to those on foot focuses our attention on the human scale and impacts the quality of everyone’s experience in Coolidge Corner. We have a choice. Can we find a balance between accommodating the through traffic and making Coolidge Corner a people place? I hope so. </span></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /><br style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;" /></span>Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-44372817778968995672010-02-03T10:53:00.000-05:002010-02-03T10:53:30.118-05:00SHIFTBoston Ideas CompetitionOn the frigid eve of January 14, 2010 the Institute of Contemporary Art was the setting for unveiling of the winners of the SHIFTBoston ideas competition. I was there. It was fun. Lots of folks who love the city, many of them unemployed architects, were enjoying the shared buzz of dreaming and creating a more lively and meaningful city. Check out the winners and significant contributions at the website below.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbfq5wunt7nJDRfW9wVkPCWT1cbH-COgeQf0pz5BRgH_t127oKW-iHakiQ-OyjjdAKb9lnhZem8xjdb9HUyhBoMAUpHO8fYBR3TuSTtgVSyYHFPHuCin1pkCj8tBPiSsgyKQagyyrRXWzy/s1600-h/BOS2009_011.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbfq5wunt7nJDRfW9wVkPCWT1cbH-COgeQf0pz5BRgH_t127oKW-iHakiQ-OyjjdAKb9lnhZem8xjdb9HUyhBoMAUpHO8fYBR3TuSTtgVSyYHFPHuCin1pkCj8tBPiSsgyKQagyyrRXWzy/s320/BOS2009_011.jpg" /></a></div><br />
The brief for the competition, (from their website, <a href="http://www.shiftboston.org/">Shiftboston.org</a>) says this:<br />
<br />
<br />
Let’s make Boston dynamic!<br />
<br />
The SHIFTboston Ideas Competition 2009 called on all architects, artists, landscape architects, urban designers, engineers and anyone to submit their most provocative wild visions for the City of Boston: <span class="capBlue">WHAT IF</span> this could happen in Boston?<br />
<br />
SHIFTboston seeks to collect visions that aim to enhance and electrify the urban experience in Boston. Innovative, radical ideas for new city elements such as public art, landscape, architecture, urban intervention and transportation. Competitors were encouraged to explore topics such as the future city, energy efficiency and ecological urbanism. <br />
<br />
This competition is intended to collect and inspire. The goal is to attract greater public interest in future possibilities for the urban environment of Boston. We want to inspire and engage the city community while encouraging positive awareness and a hunger for change. We believe a collective desire to push boundaries and challenge the familiar are the necessary seeds with which to grow a more dynamic city!<br />
<br />
<strong>THINK <span class="newColor">PLAY</span> THINK <span class="newColor">NEW</span> THINK <span class="newColor">OUTSIDE THE BOX</span></strong> <br />
We seek to drive a SHIFT in thinking, perception, attitude, definition, process, method, planning, and organization in order to re-energize Boston’s urban environment. We are here to move Boston forward. Be part of the SHIFT!<br />
<br />
Despite their plea for open endedness, the brief actually gave a lot of direction, which was not necessarily a bad thing, but it is easy to see in hind sight how the entrees fit within the topics. I actually think they did a good job of provoking a direction just enough to contain the range, while still encouraging creativity. Remember too that entries were visually rendered. The world as defined by trained architects. So while the competition was named an "Ideas" competition, the realm of possible ideas was clearly visual/spatial. Again, not a bad thing, but a niche nonetheless. A reshaping of the world achieved through building or using space in a different way. To be able to enter, a person needed to have a profound mastery over rendering software, so the universe of possible entrants was delineated.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_iqfzfLzL4rK-xAhoq9P_cPZlSygfRJ0vGQ8s_VrsjwQFtQM16MFtujJ7vxW9gE-rb8peplJp3m-wFZrmvzoJk4lZvXMeR0PL2V6R2kwIA3lcG8PPOc5r44ziT4APCdmLD29nFIFhPgX0/s1600-h/BOS2009_074.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_iqfzfLzL4rK-xAhoq9P_cPZlSygfRJ0vGQ8s_VrsjwQFtQM16MFtujJ7vxW9gE-rb8peplJp3m-wFZrmvzoJk4lZvXMeR0PL2V6R2kwIA3lcG8PPOc5r44ziT4APCdmLD29nFIFhPgX0/s320/BOS2009_074.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Some clear themes emerged. 1) Active use of public space. Such as urban farming on the Greenway, floating temporary park barges, or the winner, which proposed turning the unused Tremont subway tunnel into a theater space. 2) Interactive environments, using technology in response to natural forces to heighten our awareness of our environment. Such as the wind and light responsive dynamic light display in Fort Point Channel, or the harbor cleaning floating responsive technological play/learn barge. 3) Responses to climate change, these ranged from the simply profound blue chalk "water line" marking the new water level after sea levels rise, to the adaptive response to flooded land that proposed an acceptance of change rather than resistance. The green underpass walls, wind and water technology collaborative learning center and shared use kayaks hinted at an acknowledgment of building a more "harmoniously integrated" environment. A profound reawakening of our relationship to the ocean seems destined for our future, and was on the minds of many entrants.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCkqF7uhAboFsdbTP2cd0qapwN7JMT63oRm5Gituv9QQRdY62dSahZJF3BTuTJLLKSVp_sk28yjYY8rV2Z5A2Pt00NGW93RuUuntqk2A3kR5wvEOvkAdA-L2mwWN71SCD_CDF4ZYaSO1mi/s1600-h/BOS2009_063.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCkqF7uhAboFsdbTP2cd0qapwN7JMT63oRm5Gituv9QQRdY62dSahZJF3BTuTJLLKSVp_sk28yjYY8rV2Z5A2Pt00NGW93RuUuntqk2A3kR5wvEOvkAdA-L2mwWN71SCD_CDF4ZYaSO1mi/s320/BOS2009_063.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
After introducing the judges, presenting the runners up and discussing the "dominant entry themes" the event's MC Brian Healy yielded the floor to the political luminaries in the audience. There was a Boston City Council member, who liked what he say and spoke about the need for Boston to be attractive to young people, which meant creating more opportunities for active public life, and Kairos Shen, Boston's Chief Planner, who stressed realism perhaps more than anyone else there that night, all the while noting that if the mayor were here, he would be wildly happy. A representative of the State's Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development pleaded for help and ideas for solving the problem of matching building opportunities that he oversees with truly creative talent. A valuable identification of a solvable problem, and I am sure many in the audience were more than happy to learn about a new source for employment opportunities.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7tXUTjSRwgEAmGF6WWIoQKAT6HW1BKSKvJZExiOuZnohoWIkxHEXOj9tPNY-PUmV9xQy_uUGMqVsFijRZ08fklmdaH_ORJqioCqcridv-MOLovd3WHbX07YIJzJ5LAqcvJcU7LOT0K65K/s1600-h/BOS2009_132.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7tXUTjSRwgEAmGF6WWIoQKAT6HW1BKSKvJZExiOuZnohoWIkxHEXOj9tPNY-PUmV9xQy_uUGMqVsFijRZ08fklmdaH_ORJqioCqcridv-MOLovd3WHbX07YIJzJ5LAqcvJcU7LOT0K65K/s320/BOS2009_132.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
While those present clearly yearned for a loosening of the restrictions and negativity that so often meets new ideas, there was no shortage of inspiration. The temporary nature of many of the proposals held out the greatest hope for implementation. What many fear, (and rightly so in many cases), is the imposition of "of the moment" fads and fancies of architects that will not stand the test of time and are hopelessly out of scale and context to their surroundings. Loss of meaning through destruction of our built heritage is not necessarily the best route forward. But there is also the need to create and to respond to present needs and life styles. The ideas generated here, pose a third alternative with their innovative, and often temporary re-use and re-claiming of unused and unwanted spaces and places. This seems particularly appropriate in our short-attention span era and somehow suits the needs of a limited energy , finite space and financially constrained reality. The cry for more human contact, interaction and fun was palpable. While striving to be futuristic, the entries were, in reality, sublimely of the moment.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-44301959856776302902009-12-26T15:39:00.002-05:002009-12-26T15:49:42.053-05:00What is Balanced Transportation?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijIfGu2jTkbBq_64dXEWXrMCO4uYF9ZsraKA1ba6JUxGLlOFnWfxK8IQEhRJhMq8wSwqzY0HT4aRDxA5ZeUF_6r5kRm3KuEQ-Y8Em2aDOeI6w4RergateiOVqjHh3iclewFyvjlSmwj1ED/s1600-h/653px-USDOT_highway_sign_bicycle_symbol_-_black.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijIfGu2jTkbBq_64dXEWXrMCO4uYF9ZsraKA1ba6JUxGLlOFnWfxK8IQEhRJhMq8wSwqzY0HT4aRDxA5ZeUF_6r5kRm3KuEQ-Y8Em2aDOeI6w4RergateiOVqjHh3iclewFyvjlSmwj1ED/s320/653px-USDOT_highway_sign_bicycle_symbol_-_black.svg.png" /></a><br />
</div>It has been said that Peter Furth was ousted from his seat on Brookline's Transportation Board because he was "too focused on bicycles". Not even getting into the truth about Professor Furth's bona fide credentials as a world class transportation engineer, let's just stop for a minute and think about what saying that someone is "too focused on bicycles" to be on the Transportation Board means.<br />
<br />
Bicycles are one form of transportation. A very efficient, inexpensive, accessible and non-polluting one at that. In fact, it's fair to say that we have become so biased in our view that we think myopically, assuming that "transportation" is code speak for moving cars. Can we imagine someone saying "he's too focused on cars"? By articulating how to improve conditions for bicycling, we are making an effort to nudge our thinking a bit. Our community could improve if we viewed our public streets as a community asset and amenity meant to be used in a way that promotes access, safety and livability. This means looking holistically at the needs of the those in a car, those on foot, those riding a bike, and those riding the bus and train. How do all those moving parts interact with one another?, with their environment? and how can we best provide access between to all possible origins and destinations for the benefit of the greatest number of people in the most efficient manner? We need to think about the mobility needs of all members of our community. To speak about the needs of bicyclist's is to try to broaden our thinking to include accommodating other forms of transportation besides the automobile. And so, it is in fact an act of bringing balance to the board to have a member who has such a broad perspective already and with the experience and expertise to speak for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and drivers. <br />
<br />
When it comes to trying to achieve "balance" between an auto and a bicycle or pedestrian, it's a bit like talking about the "balance" between an innocent deer in the woods and a hunter with a rifle. The safety equation is heavily skewed in favor of the one with the weapon. In this case, the automobile. I read a recent article about an AARP survey of aging drivers. In a setting where complete dependence on the automobile is subsidized and fostered, it is understandable that elders fear the isolation and reduced opportunities for an active life that giving up driving entails. When asked about whether or not they considered walking an appropriate alternative to driving, the most frequent reason given for not thinking it was, was a lack of safety! Elders can no longer drive safely, yet they fear for their life as a pedestrian. This is a direct result of designing our streets and intersections to facilitate the maximum movement of cars instead of focusing on making it safe (let alone pleasant) to cross the street on foot.<br />
<br />
At a time when obesity related health issues and the direct health implications of climate change threaten our very existence, you would think we would want to do everything we can to make it safe and enjoyable to walk and bike, whenever these modes might be a via alternative. What those who fear these accommodations don't realize is that it is not an all or nothing proposition, but rather a case of providing a viable choice for those who might wish to choose it if it were available. While many argue that accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians is catering to the "fringe few" this is a disingenuous argument. How can we gauge the "market demand" for something that doesn't even exist in the market place? Bicycle safety increases dramatically the more bicyclists there are. <br />
<br />
It can also be said that Peter Furth does have a balanced viewpoint, or more importantly a realistic viewpoint, understanding and having expertise in all modes of transportation engineering. He has studied how people get around, around the world, and it is this breadth of understanding that allows him to see the potential for doing things better in Brookline. The changes he has advocated for in Brookline, and the one that apparently cost him his seat on the Board, was extremely modest, and he helped work towards a compromise when objections were raised. And yet those who favor the status quo above all else have made their wishes known and gotten him booted off the board. By the way, I think Bill Schwartz will be a fine addition to the Board, but a seat could have been found for him when a vacancy opened up, it did not have to be at the expense of someone of Peter's talents who was willing to serve.<br />
<br />
It is also disappointing to contemplate the broader implications of the move to ouster Professor Furth. Here we have someone with a great deal of professional skill and expertise who volunteers their time and energies, but in making an attempt to apply themselves, arouses a few vocal opponents. This, despite the fact that the Transportation Board, Mr. Furth included, worked very hard to listen to and accommodate all concerns. The result, he is removed. This, I am afraid, does not encourage those who have valuable insights to contribute to step up and volunteer.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-4887922100474187352009-12-10T08:00:00.003-05:002009-12-10T08:04:09.701-05:00YourBrookline.orgBrookline Community Foundation has a new website, YourBrookline.org that focuses on generating social capital. Local groups can post their organizations profiles, listings and events. There is a master calendar and various ways to search. My group, the Friends of the Minot Rose Garden uses it. Community members interested in finding out about volunteer opportunities or interesting things to do have a one stop shop. Check it out!Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-58965692290837374772009-11-20T19:00:00.002-05:002009-11-20T19:20:34.085-05:00Car-Sharing and Brookline: a Perfect Match<a style="font-family: georgia;" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzOUd113-aZtglW3lV661fwHpCkkPIbEmGkpC72q4fVRTaTMYpwxwrlurzeVONQGIGzi_xfaKqZ6-zZ2lusYCmkTgwH4-ImgaRg2L4qE0mXCE6wdUflR7mqCoLTo3lozaOWWTkg99GwYVi/s1600-h/logo.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 76px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzOUd113-aZtglW3lV661fwHpCkkPIbEmGkpC72q4fVRTaTMYpwxwrlurzeVONQGIGzi_xfaKqZ6-zZ2lusYCmkTgwH4-ImgaRg2L4qE0mXCE6wdUflR7mqCoLTo3lozaOWWTkg99GwYVi/s200/logo.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5399285911263493346" border="0" /></a> <a style="font-family: georgia;" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdGf5EsUgPhyUx0e43WeRT38WkW9dQl-eBa12GHrHagmuuA1yj2OFaW1H6-yLW6_j-3FgZYm7a_zufQsSpfC_NYJqf-xVv_maqx4VZA6ZXS3QX7HgYgz7UxteIVemSC1PAM4e45ZU7j5SN/s1600-h/SloganWeb.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdGf5EsUgPhyUx0e43WeRT38WkW9dQl-eBa12GHrHagmuuA1yj2OFaW1H6-yLW6_j-3FgZYm7a_zufQsSpfC_NYJqf-xVv_maqx4VZA6ZXS3QX7HgYgz7UxteIVemSC1PAM4e45ZU7j5SN/s200/SloganWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5399287167346978194" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-family:georgia;">Wheels When You Want Them. Actually, I think a more accurate slogan might be, wheels when you need them. It's a subtle difference, but it gets at the heart of why Zipcar members drive so much less than private auto owners.</span> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:template>Normal</o:Template> <o:revision>0</o:Revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:pages>1</o:Pages> <o:words>498</o:Words> <o:characters>2844</o:Characters> <o:lines>23</o:Lines> <o:paragraphs>5</o:Paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>3492</o:CharactersWithSpaces> <o:version>11.1282</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:donotshowrevisions/> <w:donotprintrevisions/> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:usemarginsfordrawinggridorigin/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Times New Roman"; panose-1:0 2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--StartFragment--> <p style="font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">3,300 residents of Brookline rely on ZipCars. Why is there a demand for car sharing in Brookline? In short, our residential density and proximity to business centers make transit, walking and biking viable transportation alternatives. Roughly one half of our resident work force gets to work without driving. More than half of the non-work travel is accomplished without a car as well. As a result, many only need to use a car occasionally. Using a shared car for that trip makes perfect sense. Car sharing enables car shedding. </p> <p style="font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p style="font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">For many the option to give up one or more of their vehicles has meant the difference between being able to live in Brookline or being forced to leave. Freeing themselves from the heavy burdens of car ownership, car share users save both time and money that can be better spent locally. Significantly, users have more resources to put towards housing costs. CSO’s are particularly beneficial to residents of North Brookline, where off-street parking is at a premium and efforts to accommodate private vehicle ownership has had serious negative consequences. We’ve struggled with the paving over of our lawns and green spaces, seen the negative consequences to new housing design, incurred significant additional costs for parking and dealt with severe traffic impacts. Car sharing helps address all of these concerns, by reducing both parking demand and vehicle traffic. </p> <p style="font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p style="font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">How does car sharing reduce vehicle traffic? Not having that private vehicle in the driveway increases an individual’s use of transit, walking and biking. If we must plan ahead and pay for each car trip we take, we will only use a car when it is the best choice, rather than the convenient or habitual choice. Choosing instead to walk, bike or take transit when we can. They are easier. We don't have to reserve in advance, we don't have to pay by the hour and we don't have to be back on time. Zipcar membership promotes "conscious transportation consumption". These effects have been repeatedly documented in many cities with car sharing. Less traffic has the synergistic effect of making it more pleasant to walk and bike for everyone.</p> <p style="font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p style="font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal">Concerns have been raised about the potential for oppressive impacts from CSO vehicles. Zipcar has been in Brookline since 2001. Today there are 78 cars at 34 sites. 59 of these vehicles have been located in residential zones without any problems or complaints. This track record gives us plenty of evidence showing how comfortably CSO’s can be accommodated throughout town. Concerns about heavy site-specific traffic from CSO vehicles are unfounded. In fact, Brookline’s zipcars are used an average of 1.5 times per day, which is analogous to a privately owned vehicle. Worries about displacing private parking seem counter-intuitive. Car-sharing reduces parking demand, with each CSO vehicle accommodating more than 40 members, many of whom got rid of or avoided acquiring a personal vehicle. As for the rowdy zipsters in the night, irresponsible zipcar members will not be members for long. ZipCar is careful to ensure its drivers are safe and responsible and you must be 21 to join. The average age of Brookline’s zipcar users is 38. </p> <p style="font-family: georgia;" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:12pt;" >Allowing CSO’s in Brookline brings many benefits to our neighborhoods, the environment, our economy and lifestyle. Article 13 has been crafted to legalize existing CSO locations and brings oversight and input to the process of creating new sites. Car sharing reduces reliance on automobiles while retaining mobility, making it an important piece of a more sustainable transportation future for Brookline.</span><!--EndFragment--><span style="font-family:georgia;"> Zipcar membership allows us to jettison our privately owned automobile. Many of us living in Brookline are lucky enough to not really need a car f</span>Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-45680559775105989342009-07-15T14:40:00.001-04:002009-08-15T13:25:21.973-04:00What's With the Gray Box?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1CkWQs0Xm7CR57R2XXNkPjxOT_Nyz8WydmJXvi0mR3BFsL8rreBa_Xo2h0WxQzxaYTyTaWi_RVtucPczKEFH993Tm54EUdsj1WOGlZRi3zcDaDwnRHo4JowUnn4AAN_g6mEsEemRABnvg/s1600-h/NexttoPomodoroWeb.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1CkWQs0Xm7CR57R2XXNkPjxOT_Nyz8WydmJXvi0mR3BFsL8rreBa_Xo2h0WxQzxaYTyTaWi_RVtucPczKEFH993Tm54EUdsj1WOGlZRi3zcDaDwnRHo4JowUnn4AAN_g6mEsEemRABnvg/s200/NexttoPomodoroWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357627752978793890" border="0" /></a><br />It's hard to miss the unique new structures going up around the former Presbyterian Church on the corner of Harvard Street and Pierce Street. These days, lots of folks passing through Brookline Village or visiting Town Hall, Pierce School or the Library stop dead in their tracks and gaze up at the strange, almost windowless gray cube that seems to almost float, detached from its surroundings, hugging the sidewalk. The exterior material appears to be something with a matte finish that resembles cardboard and despite its cube-like visage, its shape actually includes a jaunty angle or two.<br /><br />We learn from the sign posted on the corner of Harvard and Pierce that this is part of the new Community Center addition for the Korean Church at this site. In addition to the gray cube the site design includes an extensive concrete wall surrounding a "plaza" and an overly large modern structure with anti-angled roof next to a house on Holden St., right across the street from Town Hall. The illustrations from the project boards, while giving the improbable bird's-eye viewing angle, nevertheless, illustrate something of the finished products. (I digress here to note that these types of presentation views fail to offer any insight whatsoever as to what the buildings will look like from the point of view of a person walking past on the sidewalk, or from down the street or for that matter driving past. Therefore, those charged with reviewing the proposal must be able to read the plans and drawings and envisage the resulting experience for themselves).<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8w0GUcBG3K6MScuUixH_C8kzfAbbpp4ntFh2jgan3bHPPvOYeLjCU_dbZQBolW0MFs-BP2L1lym3i0gVMXJzOWG6SqkEFXJ8CrHdIYe1Ae0IcVqFSKZ4tLNcPUUN34AMoMVdF5q0ANAx2/s1600-h/Close-upHoldenStPictureWeb.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8w0GUcBG3K6MScuUixH_C8kzfAbbpp4ntFh2jgan3bHPPvOYeLjCU_dbZQBolW0MFs-BP2L1lym3i0gVMXJzOWG6SqkEFXJ8CrHdIYe1Ae0IcVqFSKZ4tLNcPUUN34AMoMVdF5q0ANAx2/s200/Close-upHoldenStPictureWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357630033819256274" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh297Qqwsy_aBotlNEcKRKyVcWDj7OUVjQhz4Jq6F5sE8ZGj-K-lwXnxwH3ty46mvH_SKS3IJ43VzpIldP_APcwj_5rTcbJvddlbb04i_6GggVIxHC8NegmmfEpivZp43Slh_rKbYgbqH7v/s1600-h/HarvardSt.Mock-upWeb.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh297Qqwsy_aBotlNEcKRKyVcWDj7OUVjQhz4Jq6F5sE8ZGj-K-lwXnxwH3ty46mvH_SKS3IJ43VzpIldP_APcwj_5rTcbJvddlbb04i_6GggVIxHC8NegmmfEpivZp43Slh_rKbYgbqH7v/s200/HarvardSt.Mock-upWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357630567339722882" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0EW_eBmSjwaGBGOdup41a71P4ZvwUs6CQSYpDiakgJZ-H4xgCx2rSwcDW7yrbA8Cq5CTcg5ML8SC4r-Po_quhelmzxJvghdGpWykFILlZSYTRHcsC9k_QHANbDAbmK40mUzYqOk-1gQdB/s1600-h/DoubleConcreteWallWeb.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0EW_eBmSjwaGBGOdup41a71P4ZvwUs6CQSYpDiakgJZ-H4xgCx2rSwcDW7yrbA8Cq5CTcg5ML8SC4r-Po_quhelmzxJvghdGpWykFILlZSYTRHcsC9k_QHANbDAbmK40mUzYqOk-1gQdB/s200/DoubleConcreteWallWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357632555200832050" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br />It is hard to see how these structures "fit" into the context of their surroundings. While this is not a blanket condemnation of modern architecture, I have to say there was no attempt to design the buildings or to design the site layout in a way that would in any way create a pleasing street scape or pedestrian experience. In fact, I don't think the building's users will find much delight here either, considering all that harsh concrete, lack of windows and strangely shaped interior space. As a pedestrian on Harvard St. we are confronted with a form molded concrete wall, getting taller as we proceed southward until it is eye level or higher before we get to the cube, which seems strangely shoved to the sidewalk's edge, despite the lack of structural bulk between it and the church building. Walking along Pierce Street, as the new formed concrete wall begins, we are treated to what seems destined to become a large electrical service box (the base for the box is there now), placed right in the former front lawn of the existing church building.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0CYlwch88ipQgy3SqKRJBdA9dBp7w97QQe2SQnBXF7egzGKsHJXw5ZV6AMYy1RAFT4b8E5CLfvtLOQBQ-edATS02j3UmG5o9B-eaHyLbegD8kAQiT0FSR9s-mlBZGe5Byv4EuV5MaiaBl/s1600-h/AngledHouseweb.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0CYlwch88ipQgy3SqKRJBdA9dBp7w97QQe2SQnBXF7egzGKsHJXw5ZV6AMYy1RAFT4b8E5CLfvtLOQBQ-edATS02j3UmG5o9B-eaHyLbegD8kAQiT0FSR9s-mlBZGe5Byv4EuV5MaiaBl/s200/AngledHouseweb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358756453670804690" border="0" /></a><br />As for the Holden St. side of the project. Imagine living in that house next to the seemingly massive, wedged-in-there oddly angled building. It appears that this structure too will have a similar exterior material. What was once a residential setting has become something else altogether. This structure no more relates to the church than it does to the house on the other side of it. It seems to be deliberately designed to be as distinct as possible. Are we dealing with Brookline's own version of a "starachitect". An attempt by a singular personality to make waves by creating a structure so unique that it can't be ignored? Why would we want that here, in this closely knit setting of historic homes, businesses and public buildings?<br /><br />The cube itself is a monolithic presence, kind of like a big stereo speaker in a room of antique furniture, as we look across the street to the fine historic red brick buildings, with their inviting doors and windows, fine detailing and timeless simplicity. It would have been entirely possible to design a modern structure that nonetheless fit in this setting. Had it had some elements remotely in common with the structures in the vicinity, namely the original church, the house on Holden, or the brick buildings on Harvard, be it materials, height, massing, roof height and angle, the rhythm of windows, shape, form, etc. But these structures have none of these.<br /><br />Just what is that material that the cube is made of? I believe the architect said it was a colored "cementitious" material, but I must say it doesn't look as if it will weather very well.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfszLaeR60IxMfPRnvs83OhBRX7rJ8wJacGrgme9bc22rSQGaRIMG_a0BcHljkh6TZAIw3IsY65vdbiJQY5x5RlieX6oYzTXnSmacRDiK2yql-imtKnUG7qP3YjWGhoT9ERRC3fs4Tm2cn/s1600-h/MaterialofCubeWeb.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfszLaeR60IxMfPRnvs83OhBRX7rJ8wJacGrgme9bc22rSQGaRIMG_a0BcHljkh6TZAIw3IsY65vdbiJQY5x5RlieX6oYzTXnSmacRDiK2yql-imtKnUG7qP3YjWGhoT9ERRC3fs4Tm2cn/s200/MaterialofCubeWeb.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5357635189910912834" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpa7mNPW4s5F41g0Z0iKW6d2vz4IsBLiDA4an6llzpkXKh5DSC570yyn5U6pWiXg7CBrfay-q5zPAD1-XElkEU5Q2UHfR8QTMDtaT5uCrmq_olqgjK2LtuvcjJpJrkAffaQEm8Xy39hOix/s1600-h/FloatingCube2Web.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpa7mNPW4s5F41g0Z0iKW6d2vz4IsBLiDA4an6llzpkXKh5DSC570yyn5U6pWiXg7CBrfay-q5zPAD1-XElkEU5Q2UHfR8QTMDtaT5uCrmq_olqgjK2LtuvcjJpJrkAffaQEm8Xy39hOix/s200/FloatingCube2Web.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358754724252349778" border="0" /></a><br /><br />So how did this project get approval? Our zoning ordinance includes special consideration for building proposals on Harvard St., calling for additional design review. This is obviously in recognition of the need to "get it right" when it comes to designing for this prime Brookline Village location. The zoning for the site is G 2.0 which allows a building floor area that is twice the lot area, a maximum height of 45 ft. and has no set back or open space requirements. So, almost anything could meet the bare minimum of the zoning, hence the need for the design review and one of its key standards, "Relation of Buildings to the Form of the Streetscape and Neighborhood" which states that the proposed development shall be consistent with the use, scale, yard setbacks and architecture of existing buildings and the overall streetscape of the surrounding area.<br /><br />When I asked a Planning Board member about this project, I was told that this development was brought to us courtesy of the Dover Amendment. The Dover Amendment (M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3) is a state law that states that "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements."<br /><br />As I understand it, the main purpose behind the Dover amendment is to disallow local governments the option of denying (or making such restrictive requirements that it amounts to a denial) building permits to churches and educational institutions. It is assumed that this is needed to counterbalance the preferential treatment that local government permitting bodies might bestow on taxable developments over non-profits. As in the case of affordable housing, it is thought that the competition between local communities for tax dollars creates a disincentive for allowing the publicly beneficial or necessary functions that non-profits bring. It is a blunt club trying to even the playing field. There have also been arguments made that the Dover amendment is needed to prevent discrimination against certain faiths or ethnic groups, etc. As with most laws, the true meaning is derived through case law as those left to interpret its meaning become embroiled in disputes about the meaning of various aspects, such as whether or not the building is "integral to the mission" of the educational institution or just how "unregulated" does the project have to be. The give and take between local governments and religious and educational institutions wishing to build and expand has of course led to a continuous parsing of the finer points of interpretation of this bit of legal code.<br /><br />A question in this case might be are the "community center" buildings that comprise the church expansion "integral to the exercise of their religion"? The house of worship already exists. These buildings are to accommodate various community functions. If they are not integral to the practice of their religion, than they would not be protected under the Dover Amendment and their design could be made to comply with the above mentioned design standards.<br /><br />These buildings probably do meet those limited elements of our zoning code that can be regulated under Dover, (height, bulk, lot coverage, etc.). However, it is nonetheless common for towns to seek dialogue and review on project proposals.<br /><br />In the case of this project the architect was asked to appear before our Planning Board for a "courtesy" design review. Amazingly enough, it turns out that for the most part, our Board members said they liked the design. I doubt seriously that our Board members were able to conceive in their minds eye the way this project actually looks from the various angles we are destined to experience it, such as what the concrete wall will be like to walk next too for half a block, or how "detached", ill-placed and odd the cube looks from the perspective of the pedestrian walking on Harvard. Had they done so, I would hope they would have realized just how "out of context" and frankly ridiculous this project really is, and armed with that visage of the future, they might have tried to negotiate for a better design, or looked into the question of Dover applicability a bit more robustly.<br /><br />Here is what our Planning Board members said about this project's design, as quoted from the minutes of their 04/18/07 meeting with Brian Healy, the project's architect.<br /><br /><br />"Linda Hamlin said she likes the modern design of the building, and<br />appreciates the strategy to address adjacent buildings in the residential<br />and commercial areas. Linda Hamlin said she is concerned about the<br />concrete wall along Harvard Street, and replacing the existing stone wall,<br />in regards to maintenance and friendliness. Brian Healy said he<br />understands her concerns with the wall, and says he will do mock-ups to<br />select the best design. Linda Hamlin asked about the windows on the east<br />elevation. Brian Healy clarified, and showed the Board the plans and<br />elevations. Steve asked about the height of the wall. Brian Healy said<br />it will be from 3’ to 5’ in height. Steve said he also appreciates a<br />modern design, but has also shares Linda Hamlin’s concerns about the<br />concrete wall. Steven Heikin said he does not feel the design addresses<br />the residential and commercial contexts of the two streetscapes. Kenneth<br />Goldstein said he likes the design on Harvard Street, but feels the design<br />on Holden Street elevation does not address the residential character of<br />the street.<br /><br />Jerome Kampler said he is not a fan of modern architecture. Jerome<br />Kampler said he was concerned the house on Holden Street would see a<br />concrete wall out of their north windows. Kenneth Goldstein agreed, and<br />said the addition is not residential in character. Jerome Kampler asked<br />why they weren’t taking advantage of the windows on the south side. Brian<br />Healy said they wanted to better utilize the play of light within the<br />chapel by keeping the wall dark.<br /><br />Linda Hamlin said she felt the building scale was appropriate considering<br />the institutional nature of the area. Jerome Kampler said he felt no<br />residential neighbor would want to open a window and see a blank concrete<br />wall."<br /><br /><br /><br />The architect has been described to me as "arrogant", and it may be that, because of the Dover protections, the Town would not have been able to gain any concessions on this unfortunate design. But I would have liked to think that our public servants (planning board, town councel, planning staff, etc.) would have more clearly seen that this design was a negative for the village and pursued all avenues to seek a better result. I don't think that happened and now we are stuck with it for a very long time.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-37600371958407428512009-05-24T12:46:00.006-04:002009-05-24T14:39:07.851-04:00Under SurveillanceThe debate in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Brookline</span> over whether or not to accept 24/7 video surveillance of our "Critical Infrastructure" as a part of the nine-community Metro Boston Homeland Security Region has been far reaching and intense. For some, the issue has brought to the fore and highlighted deep seated beliefs about the nature of freedom in a democratic society, the role of government, the nature of the "threat", the potential for mistakes and abuse, the paralyzing effects of fear and whether or not cameras add to or alleviate this effect, and the need to safeguard civil liberties.<br />Still others focus more prosaically on questions such as whether or not the cameras will be useful for their intended purpose, the potential for application for other purposes good and bad, the true costs now and in the future of the "system", the opportunity costs of dedicating police resources to surveillance and not other types of policing, and wondering about the possibility of a meaningful assessment of the program during the 1-yr trial period. And then there are those who simply do not wish to second guess our Police Chief.<br /><br />It is this later motivation which I believe has trumped the considerations of our Selectmen so far. After all they are the ones who have to work very closely with the Chief and must rely on his cooperation and good will to "get the job done" in the exemplary manner we have come to expect. Avoidance of conflict is not, however, a good enough reason to impose a critical infrastructure with such far reaching ramifications onto the citizens of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Brookline</span> without careful consideration of all the tough questions nor without accounting for the general feelings of unease this proposition has engendered. This is after all the way we approach all other difficult decision making. Other department heads must undergo similar questioning and scrutiny without taking it either personally or holding a grudge, it comes with the territory.<br /><br />What is most interesting to me is the general mindset this debate has tended to reveal, in terms of how people view the idea of Homeland Security and whether or not people have a critical skepticism about the motives and effectiveness of programs originating from the Department of Homeland Security. Some see the world in terms of all its potential dangers and seek to deploy all available tools to combat these threats, even to the point of not questioning their true efficacy, finding comfort in the fact that they have done all that they can. Their thinking runs along the lines of, "Imagine if something terrible happened and we could have prevented it, or someone may have been helped, if we had the cameras, I would never forgive myself if I was responsible for the lack of cameras." It kind of reminds me of those who wish to employ all possible life prolonging medical technology at the end of life, just in case...<br /><br />On the other end of the spectrum are those whose worst nightmare is the harassment, accusation or imprisonment by the government, or police, of an innocent victim who whether or not they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time or were simply acting a bit "different" were nonetheless identified as a "suspect". The culture of fear run amok. On a more subtle level many are concerned with the general culture of conformity and suppression of freedom caused by the threat of this occurrence. For these individuals, the cameras simply heighten the general feelings of paranoia running rampant today and perpetuate the dissolution of our feelings of trust and human connection. The opposite of fostering community.<br /><br />For those who see the cameras as protection, those who see danger in surveillance are seen as "crazy radicals or those who have something to hide". For those who see the cameras as a threat to civil liberties, those who see the cameras as protection are pinning their hopes on a flawed and false "techno fix" and have been duped into a dangerous mind set of trusting "government protection against unseen threats".<br /><br />To me one critical fact about this question, especially as it relates to our relationship with our Police Chief is that this is a system designed and financed by entities beyond the Town. We can argue until the cows come home about whether or not cameras may or may not help solve crimes (its been pretty conclusively shown they do not prevent crime). That's not the point, because this system was designed to aid in the evacuation of Boston and everything about it, from the choice of cameras to the data system to the camera's locations have determined with that in mind. The fact that our Chief has tried to make use of the cameras for other things is commendable, but not very convincing. Repeatedly at various hearings and forums, in response to citizen's concerns about being under surveillance in public areas, the Chief has said "the cameras are simply pointing in the middle of the road". If this is the case then, how can they be truly useful for solving crimes? We have been told that the camera's are "our cameras and under our control". However, when asked if then we could locate the cameras wherever we wanted, the Chief answered no.<br /><br />Had we been presented with a well designed surveillance plan arising out of a spontaneous need and developed to address specific problems in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Brookline</span>, (identified by our Police, that was not a blanket 24/7 surveillance of public areas), I believe we would be having a much different conversation. However, that is not the case. As is obvious, these cameras are not free. The decision to "refer to Committee" so very popular in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Brookline</span> is, in this case only a way to defer making a decision. The task of truly evaluating both the tangible and intangible potential costs and benefits of this system are beyond the capabilities of this and just about any other possible committee.<br /><br />For many, our local crime problems could be better addressed through increased patrolling, including officers on foot or bike and better lighting, not remote surveillance. A greater police presence with face to face interaction would add to citizens feelings of safety and security.<br /><br />The Chief clearly has our safety and well-being in mind, no one doubts this. He also wishes to avail himself of the latest technology and is loathe to turn down such a "gift", or to become a "non-complying" community within the consortium. However, this is a decision whose impacts have such far reaching <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">repercussions</span> that the burden of that decision must be borne by us. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Brookline</span> has a long history of independence and we should not be afraid to exercise that choice once more.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-51332519146466671412009-02-08T15:11:00.022-05:002009-02-09T13:51:16.875-05:00Lessons From BogataOnce again, an inspiring urban leader has come to Boston. Enrique Penalosa, former mayor of Bogata, Columbia held forth at multiple speaking engagements last week, thanks to the Livable Streets Alliance, Walk Boston and the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. As with Nicky Gavron, the former deputy mayor of London who I saw speak last year, there was much food for thought as we heard about the farsighted transformations realized by this remarkable urban leader.<br /><br />The capacity crowd filled the Rabb Lecture Hall as Mr. Penalosa began his presentation. Distilling things down to their essence, he was able to convey, not just the mechanics of his remarkable public transportation and urban planning vision, but the basic philosophy that underpins his view of cities, how they function and what makes them livable. The fundamentals he presented have relevance anywhere and we would all do well to remember them as we plan and make policy in our own communities.<br /><br />In London, all policies and plans flowed from a single driving principal, namely to make London the city of the future by planning for sustainability in all sectors. Every possible program, expenditure and policy was held to this metric and every effort was made to mutually support initiatives through multiple means. This type of single-minded purpose, which in practice, becomes the homing beacon for a wide-ranging and mutually supporting set of initiatives is very much like the process that miraculously surfaced in Bogota. The transformation of Bogota from a city of despair and desperation to one of hope and optimism was based on holistic, practical, bottom-up thinking and carried forth by a series of strong charismatic leaders.<br /><br />Mr. Penalosa's vision emanates from a what he calls "Urban Happiness", which could best be summarized as a "people first" perspective. To understand how to achieve urban happiness we first had to come to grips with a few basic truths, which Penalosa proceeded to lay bare with simplicity and clarity. Each of them providing a theoretical foundation for the next:<br /><br />1. Adam Smith doesn't work in cities.<br /> <br />In other words, everyone working to maximize their own benefit doesn't equal the best outcome for the public at large. To redress this balance is government's job. Those with little income or resources also lack political power, which is why "democracy" alone, does not work to the advantage of the disadvantaged. In the end, maximizing the benefit of all brings the greatest amount of prosperity to the community by raising standards of education, human potential fulfillment, health and contentment.<br /><br />2. There is a basic conflict between people and cars in a city.<br /><br />How is it that we accept as normal the constant threat to our lives, our children's lives and our freedom of movement from the automobile? Given free reign, the car took over the most congested, and once pedestrian dominated spaces of our villages, central cities and neighborhoods. In developing countries the inequality of this is even more pronounced, as the percentage who own cars is very small, yet their tyranny over the environment is no less total. The answer is not to give everyone cars. As populations increase, density increases, infrastructure and land costs are prohibitive, the environmental and energy costs laid bare etc. the "American sprawl" model is revealed to be a domed strategy. Practical mass transit solutions are essential. A variety of modes, all given equal weight, dignity and investment are necessary to ensure continued circulation, public health, equity, access and preservation of a public life.<br /> In our relatively recent history, we have allowed the private automobile to dominate and harass all forms of life. Cars aren't necessarily bad, but they belong some places and not others. People are social beings and we have allowed the automobile to destroy our public life.<br /><br />3. Our greatest public spaces are our sidewalks.<br /><br />How easy it is to take this vital resource for granted, yet, when is it that we "run into" our neighbor? Do you get to stop to chat when you are whizzing by in your car? Do you get to have unexpected encounters when all your social exchanges must be planned ahead of time or worse occur via the mediated environment of the computer screen? If we don't have pleasant walking environments to "draw us out of our houses" and give us a reason to spend time in the presence of others, how will be feel a part of our community? How will we be exposed to diversity and retain our humanity and humility?<br /><br />4. The way to judge the success of a building is whether or not it creates a pleasing experience for the pedestrian.<br /><br />How many architectural models get evaluated from the "birds eye" perspective? Or how many drawings of buildings get presented to planning boards that show a building in isolation from the perspective of a passenger in a car in the middle of the road? What do these models and drawings tell us about the experience of that building as we walk past it? Nothing. The pedestrian environment is about details, scale, feeling comfortably protected yet not closed in. We have plenty of examples of pleasant pedestrian environments here in Brookline, thanks to our historic commercial areas. Too bad new building designers can't seem to internalize and utilize these lessons.<br /><br />5. Cities are for people.<br /><br />While trees and other natural elements are very welcome and soften the hard edges of the city, cities are about human interaction. As many studies have shown, (most notably by William Whyte and Jan Gehl) people are attracted to places where other people are. We might want to sit in the shade under a tree, but we want to be able to see everyone there, we won't go sit with our back to the "action". To put it simply, having a plaza, in the European sense of the word makes more sense than trying to recreate a forest in the city. Like the automobile, this is a case of having the appropriate environment in the appropriate place. When we need isolation, quiet and communion with nature in a different way, we go elsewhere, to our sanctuaries, national parks, etc. In the city, we enjoy liveliness.<br /><br /><br />6. People behave the way they are treated.<br /><br />A better way to put this might be that when people are treated with respect, they are free to respect themselves and each other. By concentrating on providing services, facilities, parks, etc.that benefit all members of society, you help equalize opportunities and improve conditions for the community as a whole. This also extends to the psychological and cultural transformation that occurs when you elevate the pedestrian or bicyclist by protecting them and making it easy for them to enjoy getting around, rather than what is the usual case of treating the person on foot or bike as an obstacle to the car and making them feel not only threatened physically, but psychologically and socially inferior.<br /><br />7. We are all equal in the public realm.<br /><br />By mixing in public places, we are better able to remember our essential equality. Also, being exposed to diversity in a non-threatening way can help us remain open to new ideas and new ways of being. This is a fundamental principle that F.L. Olmsted believed in too. By providing public parks that were equally enjoyable to all classes and gave access to activities and settings that before had only been the province of elites, he hoped to ease tensions between classes and help integrate new immigrant populations into the community. This access was, Olmsted believed a fundamentally humanizing and health giving force that was a right and necessity for modern life. He also believed it was a key element to maintaining a functioning democracy.<br /><br />8. Pedestrians and Bicyclists are not second class citizens and they deserve infrastructure investment, not making do.<br /><br />After seeing Mr. Penalosa's slides of those wide dedicated bike lanes and separate walking paths, that were obviously carefully laid out to gently curve, provide views and access between key public facilities I could not help but contrast that with what we have here. How many fine days did I struggle to access the narrow strip of the Charles River Bike Path, just to get some exercise and a glimpse of the river...For most of the way, the bike path is bordered by Storrow Drive with its roaring cars, and the path itself is packed with cyclist, walkers, dog walkers, skaters, baby strollers, tourists, etc. it is an obstacle course because of the mix of users, so much so that one cannot really ride freely. Yet for this bit of scenery and access we are grateful. Everywhere else, it is only constant vigilance that keeps us from getting killed and we put up with it.....<br /><br />9. If pedestrian and bicycling facilities are provided, people will use and enjoy them.<br /><br />Many transportation professionals still view pedestrians and bicyclists as an after thought and do not plan roadways, sidewalks, intersections or new developments with them in mind. Some of this is just institutional inertia, some political will from the car driving public, but it becomes a chicken and the egg kind of problem. While the numbers are small, it seems easy to treat the pedestrians and bicyclists as an after thought, however, this is a self-fulfilling proposition. If facilities are built and planning done to make environments that are pleasant and safe to use, people will flock to use them. This has been proven through the ciclovia events, or "car-free" days that were sponsored in Bogota and other cities. Here we have our Sunday closing of Memorial Drive and our Bike Beacon St. day. When a facility is given over to bikes and people they happily take advantage! It becomes a question of shifting the balance in how we allocate what is a public resource, and an increasing valuable public resource at that, our streets and sidewalks. It is not an all or nothing proposition, but the balance is so far skewed towards auto use that just moving it a bit seems a momentous undertaking.<br /><br />10. Waterfronts should be made available to the public and enjoyed by all. Not for roads, cars or private access.<br /><br />Water is precious and soothing and in a city especially waterfronts can be the most beautiful settings. Unfortunately, highway engineers like to route roads next to rivers, etc. because the land is available and there are no intersections. This has cut off access to many cities most precious resource and we must take it back. In Paris they even bring in truck loads of sand and put up beach umbrellas on the roadway next to the Seine to create a "beach" in the summer and the citizens flock to it. Public access to water ways must be protected through laws as well, which prohibit the closing of beach access, etc.<br /><br /><br />One wonders how Mr. Penalosa and his predecessors where able to gather the necessary political support to begin their visionary reforms. But we are grateful for the example it has given us of enlightened leadership and planning.Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-61386830962081493712008-12-31T15:40:00.005-05:002008-12-31T16:21:12.484-05:00The Year that WasI usually hate those "let's look back and sum up" stories we get deluged with at this time of year, but I find myself reflective and drawn to do just that as I look out on the second (or third?) big snow storm of the season.<br /><br />We all weathered our share of adversity and it doesn't look like it will end anytime soon. If you didn't lose your job yet, you likely know someone or several people who have. You watched your IRA or 401(k) if you had one, lose almost half it's value or maybe you were a victim of the Madoff scandal. But what really stands out for me is the way we all reached out for each other and kept on keeping on. Somehow our community felt more like a community.<br /><br />The morning after Barak Obama was elected I went down to Coolidge Corner to do some errands and the air was electric with relief, joy, potential, pride. Everyone smiled at each other. Strangers talked about being proud to be an American again, finally. I went to the hardware store and someone was there asking about American flags, and this was someone who did not look like they had flown one for quite awhile. Young people saw a reason to be involved again, a hope that maybe there was something worth working towards or for. All that bad news that's been heaped upon us is not smothering us, it's a challenge. A call to arms. Our talents, strengths, skills, hard work and perseverance are needed and will have a channel to be funneled through.<br /><br />We had some pretty momentous and heated debates on local issues too. Article 15 and the revolutionary concept that there was such a thing as too much parking was a teaching moment, one that seems to need to be repeated again as 2 Brookline Place enters the final phase of their permitting. I was thrilled and proud that Town Meeting passed it. The Article 13 debate was a low point. There seemed to be so many disingenuous sound bites, lack of real discourse and meaning....it just devolved to such a point I felt it wrong to even have a vote on it at that point. I have been working on a "Growing Smart" post ever since, stay tuned...<br /><br />At the Minot Rose Garden we held a ribbon cutting, celebrating the installation of our fabulous, gorgeous fence, thanks to the Brookline Community Foundation, many donors and the Parks and Open Space division. It's always such a celebration of community to get together in the garden and express our gratitude and appreciation for all it brings to the neighborhood. On that score, our call for artists for our up coming art show at the Brookline Arts Center brought submissions from more than 60 artists. The caliber of the art was phenomenal and the show, coming up this February 9 - March 21 will be fantastic! I love the idea of getting all those artists together, who have the garden in common. I can't wait. Rose garden art in the dead of February.<br /><br />Another highlight as far as I'm concerned was the creation of the town's Climate Action Committee. What a great, committed group of folks and we are just getting going! It's an honor to be a part of this effort, and while the subject of climate change is perhaps our greatest challenge as a species, it is a positive to be part of those seeking solutions and actions. It's nice too how with our new president and some very good new State legislation, (the Green Communities Act and the Global Warming Solutions Act), it feels like finally we will have the wind at our backs, all of us working towards the same goal. How long has it been since we've felt that way?<br /><br />Brookline, like the rest of the country and the world has experienced a seismic shift, unlike anything I can remember, but rather than being a disaster, it feels like an opportunity to build a better, stronger community.<br /><br />[where:02446]Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-18232500006090234912008-10-29T11:00:00.003-04:002008-10-31T14:51:47.701-04:00Finding a Better BalanceGreetings. Sorry for the long absence, but like the rest of you, I have been both very busy and preoccupied with the cataclysmic changes roiling throughout the known universe. It is both a frightening and yet exciting time. Before the full magnitude of the "crisis" was made manifest, I was stopped in Coolidge Corner by someone with a BATV camera, who identified himself as someone from the TAB. He asked me to pontificate about how the financial crisis was playing out on 'main street', and more specifically, my house. Feeling somewhat cavalier at the moment, I opined about the opportunity for new ways of thinking and doing. How chaos frees us from complacency, in a sense because we do not have stability to lose by trying new things. I still believe that. I also believe that we must find new ways to do things, and as the ranks of those who have nothing left to lose grows and the threats from climate change mount the demand for change will swell into a tsunami. But enough of grand theories. Back to the home front.<br /><br />I came here to write about what Dick Benka has characterized (in last Sunday's Globe article about our new Economic Development Director, Kara Brewton) as "one of the festering issues in town--the tension between development and the neighborhoods". Festering indeed. Boiling over might be more accurate. Neighbors have been driven to the extreme action of banding together, hiring a lawyer out of their own pockets and filing lawsuits. This has happened repeatedly. It might be easy to simply dismiss this as typical "nimbyism" or an unavoidable consequence of building in Brookline. But I don't think it is at all that simple, nor is it inevitable. Clearly there is a lack of honest dialogue and trust. We talk around the issues. We talk in sound bites and platitudes and everyone gets frustrated, thinking the other "side" simply doesn't listen or understand. Despite plenty of "process". Well guess what. It is every one's job to communicate in a new way to make themselves understood. To talk truth about what it is they are really concerned about and what's behind their motivations. That would be a good start.<br /><br />These lawsuits can't be good for anyone involved. They cost the town money, eating up vast amounts of town staff time and effort. They create an unfavorable environment for development, causing a self-defeating situation for those who favor development, sending the message that it is especially difficult to build in Brookline and adding additional costs for project proponents. Costs that might have been directed more constructively towards amenities we truly value and invested in building the types of projects that will actually add value and benefits to the community beyond mere tax dollars. But more on that later.<br /><br />As for those bringing the lawsuits, they don't seem to be having much success either, except perhaps making a very expensive point.<br /><br />The reasons for this situation are complex and deeply rooted. But, one thing is for certain, regardless of your opinion or viewpoint on the subject, continuing on in the same way, holding dear to our entrenched "core beliefs" and willful compulsions will only lead to further conflict and more importantly for the future of Brookline, bad developments. At the very root of the problem is a focus on short term gain. The realities of real estate financing dictate this approach on the part of the land speculators and builders. This is to be expected. The problem is, the Town has fallen victim to this way of thinking as well. We have seen the ramifications of this modis operandi playing out in the financial crisis, and in fact the analogy to that situation offers some interesting insights. A few days ago we watched Alan Greenspan confess that his "theory of the way the world works had a fatal flaw", that in fact investment banks, left unregulated, did not act in a way that ensured their long term viability, let alone take into account the effects of their actions on the larger economy or the public in general. No kidding. In the same way, we cannot count on private developers to be thinking about the long term costs and benefits of their buildings on the community as a whole. That is a public sector job, our job. The point is, someone needs to do it.<br /><br />Applied to planning and development decisions the impacts of this short term focus are multifarious. While no one would willfully choose to discourage a growth in Brookline's tax base, it is an open question whether or not the single-minded pursuit of commercial development (and housing development for that matter) <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">at any cost</span> is in fact going to have the desired effect in the long run. Why do I say this? Besides the immediate costs associated with lawsuits and ill will alluded to above, I maintain that there are substantial and numerous costs and long-term impacts attributable to new development that we are not accounting for that make the "accounting" a bit more ambiguous. In addition, there are many potential benefits and economic "generators" that could be included in new developments that would have long term, multiplier effects that are also not accounted for when assessing the "value" to the community of a given development. For instance, locally owned businesses contribute a far greater proportion of their income to the local economy both directly and through their communty intimacy and support of our many cultural and non-profit organizations. Mixed use development, near transit reduces the need for auto ownership and travel, engenders community interaction, fosters cultural engagement and is attractive to many young professionals, thus benefiting long term environmental quality, building community and increasing Brookline's relative attractiveness to new residents. It is, after all ultimately the future citizens of Brookline who determine her character, cultural capital and potential for innovation and adaptability. It is with these future citizens in mind that we must make all of our decisions.<br /><br />Why is it that "substantial amounts of community process" fails to achieve the goal of community consensus and doesn't generate the hoped for feelings that we are furthering our shared civic goals? The principle problem with our Design Advisory Teams is the fact that they are concerned primarily with "design". As if all the questions about a particular development can be solved by changing the facade material. If we are lucky, we have talented architects on the DAT, but still, many fundamental issues about size, scale, use, function, public benefits, etc. have already been made, This is in fact and after-the-fact proposition, despite the fact that it happens before "formal applications have been made". This is because the legal parameters of what is allowed have already been determined, and as long as the developer adheres to these, they will be able to build what they want. The DAT can tweak the look of a building's facade and maybe, with a willing developer get a few more concessions, but ultimately it is all too late. The time to figure out how much of what type of development is desirable is well in advance, before someone has invested the time and money in coming up with a proposal. The community has not been involved adequately in making these fundamental decisions, in adequate detail. Here is where new thinking and dialogue is critical. Both "sides" must speak the truth with respect and a true desire to communicate and compromise.<br /><br />Many of you are hanging your head and moaning now, saying, but we just went through that agonizingly long "planning process" to write our Comprehensive Plan, or the even more painful Coolidge Corner District Planning Council. But, our zoning does not implement key provisions of our Comprehensive Plan, and, as the CCDPC tried to address, it was not detailed enough. Many issues remain unresolved in terms of our current zoning, as it relates (or doesn't) to community goals. The evidence of this are the continuous efforts at amendment through Town Meeting Warrants, etc. On the commercial side, we need to re-evaluate the particulars of how our key commercial development parcels are zoned and what might result from their development as is. Then we need to engage in a highly interactive process of visioning about what we do want, <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">using professional techniques that will engender problem solving and allow real solutions to emerge.</span> (A key difference from what has been done thus far). What would benefit the community and still be potentially buildable from an economic stand point? The solutions will grow organically out of a deep understanding of our community. Not just the physical space, but the cultural and social interchanges that add vitality to life in Brookline. We need to identify the kinds of amenities that will attract new businesses, customers and residents. Asking ourselves questions such as: What kind of employment centers could possibly do well here? Are they the kind of developments we wish to see and can we comfortably accommodate them? If so, what can we do to encourage them? Are the benefits of employment within our borders worth an investment of this sort? How can we build on the vast capital of capable professionals who already live here, as well as existing businesses, such as the large number of design professionals living and working here?<br /><br />For a case study, let's look at 111 Boylston St. With any development on Route 9 an immediate issue is traffic. Sadly, we lack the transportation planning capabilities to adequately assess the true impacts of a high intensity auto-oriented development like a medical office building (see my previous post Traffic: Route 9 and Beyond), let alone look into the system wide functioning of our transportation infrastructure. Suffice it to say, this development, in combination with general background traffic growth and additional regional development results in significant growth in traffic volumes. Delays will increase. Intersections that accommodate the required turn-arounds will fail. The upshot will be increased cut-through traffic on Walnut and Davis and other neighborhood streets. Increased pollution and accidents. Increased costs for roadway maintenance, police enforcement, health care, traffic calming and a decrease in both the quality of life and value of residential properties affected. Major transportation infrastructure improvements will be required, costing substantial sums. Any remaining roadway capacity that exists now will be "used up", making additional development of this type all the more difficult. All of these costs along with many others need to be carefully considered when weighing the value to the town of this development.<br /><br />This is a commercial development, but it is unclear whether it will serve, employ or be owned by Brookline residents. We have not asked ourselves whether or not it makes sense to put this type of development here, or what other types of development might have made more sense. We relied on the "private market" to make this decision for us. Had a more thorough planning analysis been made, we could have tailored our zoning to encourage local businesses, or mixed uses, and have better defined an appropriate building mass, setting and public realm design. Such a design would better incorporate all new developments in the area into an overall scheme that takes the pedestrian and alternative transportation options into account. A more energy efficient building would also be more attractive to future tenants and have a longer life span in an energy scarce future. As we all know, the private market does not have our long-term community wide prosperity in mind. Nor does it take into account the "external costs" that are born by the public in general, Brookline taxpayers, or the nearby neighborhoods.<br /><br />The impacts of the shadow caused by the height of the building is just one of the negative consequences brought about by a lack of forethought about the implications of re-zoning this and other parcels along Route 9 would have. The shadow is graphic and has a powerful immediacy, but is only a first order, direct impact. The neighbors' lawsuit is based on the notion that the Board of Appeals decision was "arbitrary and capricious". It was the Board's job to determine whether or not the Public Benefits given by the developer, in this case, some physical improvements for Davis Path and Boylston St. Park as well as a small cash contribution for the intersection improvement at Washington St. and High St. were, in fact adequate "compensation" for the increase in height allowed for the building. It is not necessarily that these public benefits were not well intentioned, nor that they are necessarily not actually good things for the town. But, those bringing the law suit have a point. The Board's decision was a forgone conclusion. The Board of Appeals had accepted the idea that the "benefit" of allowing the development outweighed any negative impacts articulated by the neighborhood residents. This despite the fact that one of the conditions of granting the special permit is that "the use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood." Left out of the Board's deliberations were the many more negative "externalities", some of which I have identified above.<br /><br />But, the greatest negative of all is the opportunity cost of what we could have had! This structure, and others like it, such as 1285 Beacon for instance, will be with us for a long time. Traditional economic development strategies promulgate a view of the world where municipalities or regions are in competition for development investment dollars. In some cases these strategies go so far as to grant tax subsidies to lure development, almost always losing fiscally in the process. In our case, we simply grant the right to build on our few remaining precious parcels suitable for commercial development. In a similar vein we seem to believe that we must allow what, in some cases seems to be an excessively tall and massive building footprint, and an anything will do attitude in order to "attract" development. The claim is made that we must do this in order for the projects to be economically viable. I find this hard to believe. While we cannot simply "get the project of our dreams", I do believe that had we had a better idea of what we did want, and what would be appropriate, before a proposal was on the table, a much better and still economically viable project could have been negotiated.<br /><br />The fact that these projects are proceeding in these extremely difficult times and that housing values are holding their own and perhaps even still rising, testifies to the fact of Brookline's continued desirability as a place to live and do business. We are selling our selves short. It could have been so much better. Clarity of purpose, coupled with a deep understanding of Brookline's unique character and the characteristics that make it so, a reverence for her value, a vision of a workable future and top notch design adherence could go a long way towards achieving the goal of more appropriate development.<br /><br />I know many of you will simply write me off as naive at this point, but I have seen countless examples of quality begetting quality. And we are quality, at least we were, and we are in danger of losing it. By knowing what we want, being clear and specific about it, demanding it, we will get it. In fact, this clarity would be a relief to all involved, including developers. The endless, nebulousness of our "process" could be shortened, with clearer guidelines allowing the initial proposal to be both closer to the ultimate goal and responsive to the particulars of the site. I am painting a picture here where, any future developments are in fact more in tune with Brookline's spirit, culture, physical layout and sustainability goals. Achieving this is what we need to do to make the process work, because it surely is not working now. It is a fundamental change in approach that will in fact require a commitment of resources, some new planning techniques and a willingness to be open to new ways of thinking. Being known throughout the region as the place to find, build and buy into a quality built environment that supports a vibrant forward-thinking community is what will ensure our long term prosperity. We need only value ourselves adequately, not giving in to the least common denominator. We are desirable enough to be in the position to demand the best. This will only have a synergistic beneficial effect, attracting new, progressive builders and residents, and therefore truly begetting economic development.<br />[where:02446]Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-81942482337714857762008-09-09T20:50:00.003-04:002008-09-09T21:44:32.801-04:00What would Olmsted do?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbRsRqsG2X8xJ3ViI187N8wVsp_s-gUCEa8vZyB43gaAyajhfCI3uRalclP7vuhC55nh-rsU2u-QvmSSB_gmrDqzm9iDqlzs8b20NdnhzaRMqXQQdmnOxhMTvP6z8D4gO62LFZBTF3JDvw/s1600-h/Olmsted.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbRsRqsG2X8xJ3ViI187N8wVsp_s-gUCEa8vZyB43gaAyajhfCI3uRalclP7vuhC55nh-rsU2u-QvmSSB_gmrDqzm9iDqlzs8b20NdnhzaRMqXQQdmnOxhMTvP6z8D4gO62LFZBTF3JDvw/s200/Olmsted.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5244189407745876530" border="0" /></a><br />Once again we have been reminded about the staggering import of the work of F.L.Olmsted, his sons and the landscape <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7oiQAUHQ47snJkhmOAOfR0h78zwjiUCT7o7R0A0_9ianL2W4S2k27FVTu1jReC83pUWSgFXv9hLCb0QUZtNMZeZcAV73GMfXNkFItzUXZr58Gtd7flOmbr_dJCp7Vya0FFKF0rioq_o9c/s1600-h/Fairsted.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7oiQAUHQ47snJkhmOAOfR0h78zwjiUCT7o7R0A0_9ianL2W4S2k27FVTu1jReC83pUWSgFXv9hLCb0QUZtNMZeZcAV73GMfXNkFItzUXZr58Gtd7flOmbr_dJCp7Vya0FFKF0rioq_o9c/s200/Fairsted.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5244189647441865794" border="0" /></a>architecture firm he established and ran from his home and workshop here in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Brookline</span>. Luckily for us, Olmsted's handiwork is abundantly present in our own environment. On Sunday, September 7<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">th</span> the National Park Service and the Organization of American Historians hosted a stimulating panel discussion at the Arnold Arboretum featuring four scholars: Charles <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Beveridge</span>, Editor of the Olmsted Papers Project; Ethan Carr, Landscape Historian, University of Virginia; Alexander Garvin; Architect and Planner, Yale University and Delores Hayden, Urban Historian and Architect, Yale University.<br /><br />Their charge had been to discuss ways to better utilize the vast archives of materials currently being cataloged as part of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Fairsted</span> renovation project, as well as envision ways to engage the public both on and off site to engender a better understanding and appreciation for Olmsted's vision, values, skills, and perspective. They had many fascinating ideas. Not surprisingly, a rallying call was raised to digitize the plans and photos, etc. relating to all 6,000 projects. Ethan Carr suggested a Wiki style gathering of feedback on all those projects whose fate or status remain unknown.<br /><br />Charles <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Beveridge</span> spoke eloquently about the shear genius of Olmsted's talents. How his attention to detail and understanding of human perception, psychology, everyday life, patterns of behavior and their relation to landscape and spatial relationships all coalesced to help him create not landscapes but rather forms that built a structure for the life of the city to fill in around them. Olmsted's designs incorporate a deep understanding of what humans find beautiful in nature and offer a variety of experiences and views, paced at a perfect rhythm. Even just one of his well thought out ideas, such as the separation of modes when designing pathways, still have lessons for us today.<br /><br />Delores Hayden wanted to give visitors to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Fairsted</span> an understanding that this was the "Place where their place was created" A kind of Meta understanding. Could the site somehow communicate the transformation that occurred as Olmsted's parks were being built? An era that saw our cities go from crowded, dirty, fetid places to more spread out and breathable habitats. Could we explain the massive and cascading impact on the development of the American landscape and our suburbs that Olmsted had. What was the actual site work like while the parks were being created? The hundreds and hundreds of men with shovels it took to move the earth. How about the technologies of the office. The hand drawing and model building, the pace of life, the hand correspondence. All evoke the cultural gestalt and bring to life the realities of Olmsted's achievements.<br /><br />But Delores really grabbed my imagination when she raised the challenge of finding ways to interpret and communicate Olmsted's work in both the political and social context of its day and to encourage visitors to consider how current day political attitudes and realities differ. What do these differences say about us as a people and our views about public benefit vs. private gain? While there seems to be universal admiration, gratitude and enjoyment of Olmsted's parks, why is it so hard to make public investments today?<br /><br />Ethan Carr spoke about Olmsted's ideological legacy and also called for interpretation. Our modern world is much more crowded. It is not necessarily a given that green space or access to nature is a necessity. Is there a "Public" for which to speak and plan for in the same way it was conceived of in Olmsted's time? He opined that government could no longer be counted on to provide parks or maintain them, thus the rise of multitudinous "Friends of " groups and stellar groups like the Central Park Conservancy.<br /><br />There seems to be a lack of understanding in the fact that, when done well, public projects such as parks, civic spaces, public transportation, art, infrastructure, civic buildings of grand eloquence, and a cohesive well designed public realm, elevate the culture, spirit, energy and economy of the entire enterprise of the city. Despite the fact that over and over again we see the beneficial effects, in both direct (escalating property values near new transit lines or parks, etc.) and less direct ways (increased cultural activities, in-migration of young new talent, attraction of more creative property developers and employers, etc.).<br /><br />Coincidentally enough, an intriguing article appeared in the Ideas section of Sunday's Boston Globe, entitled "Growth Factor: How Big Government Helps the Economy Take Off". A carefully documented presentation of the evidence that, despite the commonly held belief to the contrary, the size of government and high taxes do not slow a nation's economic growth. In depth study of other rich, high-tax countries revealed a higher standard of living as well as robust and growing economies. A cursory reflection on our health care crisis and lack of affordable day care to take two items will illustrate why this might be so. In fact, the article states that, "contrary to the romantic claims about the nation's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">laissez</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">faire</span> past, American history is a story of government intervening, time and again, to support growth." But I digress.<br /><br />After the panelists made their presentations members of the audience were invited to respond, making comments or asking questions. A lively flow of ideas followed. When I spoke, I first described my personal experience of being a researcher at the archives and what a thrill it was to view the actual plans in the very place they were created by the Olmsted firm. The totality of the experience was truly awe inspiring. It was a privilege. Then, I stated my interest in the challenge of interpreting Olmsted's legacy in a wider context of landscape history and planning, politics and public policy. I suggested that as we face planning and design questions we should ask ourselves, "What would Olmsted do?"<br /><br />I am quite sure that his thinking would have evolved and he would have new and ingenious solutions to the modern concerns of climate change and non-renewable energy dependence. Of course we can't really know what he would do today, it's a bit like speculating on what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Jimi</span> Hendrix's music might sound like today had he lived. We know it would have been original and musical, but what would it sound like?<br /><br />I do know that had Olmsted not grown disillusioned or cynical, he would still believe in the benefits of access to nature and the cultural benefits of public gathering places. He would have advanced his thinking in terms of environmentally sensitive site design. Transportation would have become more of an issue. The <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">devastating</span> environmental, social, health and economic impacts of suburban sprawl were not something Olmsted foresaw. How would his designs have evolved to adapt? His was a holistic perspective and I am sure he would have sought ways to engender life that better integrated people with their environment and each other along with ways to meet their daily mobility needs without automobile dependency.<br /><br />In the current era, public investment for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">civitas</span> is made evident in those places that respond to the challenge of climate change by adopting innovative policies to encourage/mandate energy efficient building and design, alternative transportation, support for renewable energy, etc. will be the places that prosper. It is a feedback mechanism. These types of initiatives insure the ability to adapt and survive into the future and offer a roost for those looking for an optimistic place to pursue their own contribution to society.<br /><br />To begin the process of interpretation of the archives, I asked the panelists if Olmsted every expressed concern or <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">dissatisfaction</span> with the shift of his work from large scale public projects to wealthy private estates. Their answers differed. Charles <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Beveridge</span> talked about the purity of Olmsted's design objectives and his belief that they were worth doing as examples of "good design and techniques" for their <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">illustrative</span> status which could be adapted and copied by homeowners across the country. Delores Hayden said that Olmsted <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">definitely</span> had regrets and was greatly concerned about the shift in focus of his work, preferring instead to see a broader public have access to the product of his efforts.<br /><br />In speaking to Delores Hayden afterwards, I was able to convey my admiration for her work to her. She told me she wanted to get a tee-shirt that said "What would Olmsted do?"<br /><br /><br />[where: 02446]Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-42465872811756024172008-08-23T14:30:00.002-04:002008-08-23T20:13:33.037-04:00Traffic: Route 9 and BeyondI've been thinking a lot about traffic, or more precisely, traffic congestion, lately. I'm afraid I'm going to have to discuss the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">nitty</span>-gritty details of traffic volumes, turning movements and intersection capacities, later on, but it's all for a purpose. Namely, to illuminate a possible future and to give us a chance to think about just what kind of future we would like to be planning for and whether or not the two correlate.<br /><br />I spent the better part of a week forecasting and analyzing the potential traffic conditions on Route 9 focusing in on the section between <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Brookline</span> Avenue and Cypress St. I began by looking at the traffic study done by the consultant for the 111 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Boylston</span> St. development. This study estimates the number of new vehicle trips likely to travel to the site, predicts their likely travel route and analyzes the function of the intersections these vehicles will travel through in year 2013. Building on this information, I have forecast and plotted the potential traffic impacts of continued commercial development at the other available sites along Route 9 in this area, postulating that it would be built-out to the full amount allowed under current zoning and assuming it were similar in use to the 111 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Boylston</span> St. development. This has been an enlightening exercise, one that has led me to some interesting conclusions which I will describe in more detail later.<br /><br />All the while when I was working on my "build-out traffic analysis", I of course experienced traffic congestion without even getting into my car. Just going about my daily life, I experience the nearly constant problem in Coolidge Corner that culminates in the log jam of cars traveling north on Harvard Street blocking the westbound Beacon Street flow, long after the light turns green. This phenomena results in some colorful words and gestures, as horns blare and agitated drivers execute maniac moves. Pedestrians, defiantly responding to their walk signal, (for which they have patiently waited), trudge through the middle of this, unconcerned about the plight of the cars stuck in the middle of the road. Note that, I said cars, not drivers. Once behind the wheel, our isolation, anonymity and sensory deprivation often cause us to act and be treated in ways that would never occur if we were face-to-face. Riding a bike is another way I experience congestion without getting into a car. It is often a game of chicken, where one needs to constantly second guess what a driver might do and they all behave differently around a bike.<br /><br />Just to add to the immersion factor, I have been reading the fascinating new book "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do and What it Says About Us." by Tom Vanderbilt. What this book lacks in depth it makes up for in breadth, and one is able to come away with a few over-arching conclusions, the most persistent of which is that despite all the tools and aids we erect to guide, regulate, enhance and protect ourselves, our human fallibility leaves us vulnerable, as we come up against our limited capacity to perceive accurately, evaluate risk realistically or act rationally. Driving is an unpredictable, uncontrollable, and unmanageable and therefore dangerous pursuit. Controlling it or managing it is only partially successful because of the random factors of human psychology.<br /><br />My favorite line in the book was this, "Parking is the gate way drug to full blown traffic abuse." A phrase much akin to Fred <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Salvucci's</span> "Parking lots are fertility drugs for cars." My favorite section was about Hans <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Monderman</span>, the Danish traffic planner who understood that it was the world of cars that was the guest in the human world of towns and cities and that by removing all traffic signs and designing roadways for slower speeds he could insert uncertainty into the driving experience, forcing drivers to expect the unexpected. Therefore to travel safely they must interact with pedestrians, bicyclists and other cars in a new context of shared space. To illustrate his point he closed his eyes and walked backwards into a traffic square of his own design and as predicted, the autos gently pick there way around him. As for "Traffic's" lack of depth, the nearly 100 pages of detailed notes offer enough source material for follow-up to anyone seriously interested in any of the many many research topics he touches upon.<br /><br />But back to Route 9. The Article 15 debate focused our thoughts on the potential traffic impacts from the 2 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Brookline</span> Place development, thanks to Hugh <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Mattison</span>, the Article's petitioner. The Article called for lowering the amount of required parking for this new, large and traffic intensive development, urging a shift towards utilizing the adjacent transit resources, as was originally intended by Town Meeting. We tried to tease out the nexus between vehicle trips and on-site parking. Concerned citizens living nearby wondered just how much of that new traffic would travel on their streets, or how they would be able to get out of their driveway as cars stacked up at a newly installed signal. We heard consultants predict how many new vehicles will traverse our crowded roadways to visit and work here and which intersections will be affected. They described what intersection improvements were necessary to mitigate those impacts.<br /><br />The bottom line was that, despite a significant underestimate of volume, (the initial estimate for 2 BP was a total of 2,800 daily trips, for a 260,000 sq.ft. facility, compared to the total of 2,400 daily trips for a 66,000 sq. ft. facility at 111 Boylston St.) the intersection with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Brookline</span> Avenue and Route 9 cannot handle the demand for left turns off of Route 9 heading to 2 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Brookline</span> Place in the morning. These vehicles, once on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Brookline</span> Ave, will then need to turn left onto Pearl St., a new traffic light will be necessary at this intersection. Pearl St. itself will be strained, as it is a narrow roadway with parking, frequent double parking and many exiting and entering driveways. It is acknowledged that the Gateway East roadway improvement, (a major construction project involving State and Federal dollars), which lengthens the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">jughandle</span> and aligns Pearl and Walnut St. into a four-way intersection with Route 9 is necessary to accommodate the traffic associated with this project. This is because it will allow eastbound vehicles to turn left, directly onto Pearl St., thereby solving the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Brookline</span> Avenue/Route 9 intersection malfunction.<br /><br />These problems are near-term and close-in and even if these congestion difficulties are successfully managed, there are also the further afield "ripple" effects of the additional thousands of daily trips added both to the through traffic volumes on Route 9 and spread out through many already congested intersections, such as School St./Cypress and Washington. More through travel on Route 9 means there are less "gaps" to accommodate increasing volumes of turning vehicles, as these two demands work against each other. The hoped for "fix" of re-timing the signal that is often suggested for failing intersections offers little hope in this situation as all competing volumes are equally high. Changing the timing to allow for a higher volume of a particular turning movement will add additional delay will to Route 9, causing backups through succeeding intersections. Other major developments are happening just over our borders too, such as the re-development of the site of the old <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Omni</span> supermarket in Chestnut Hill which increase vehicle trips on Route 9 substantially. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Brookline</span> will also be impacted by additional <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Longwood</span> development and building over the air rights of the Mass Pike in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Fenway</span>. These additional developments <span style="font-weight: bold;">were not</span> included in the traffic analysis for 111 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Boylston</span> St.<br /><br />As everyone recognizes, Route 9 is already a heavily traveled roadway, carrying as it does approximately 31,000 vehicles a day. Anyone who uses it regularly for commuting knows you are just going to sit there, spewing pollution, wasting fuel and contributing even more to global warming than you might otherwise have had to, had you not been delayed. All this congestion results in poor air quality, increased greenhouse gases, increased stress, and lost time and money (for both individuals and businesses), negatively impacting our health, environment and economy. Desperate drivers begin diverting through neighborhoods to seek a quicker route.<br /><br />As one approaches the city on Route 9, the delays increase due to the combination of heavy through travel and the increased frequency of cross streets and driveways with high volumes of crossing and turning travelers. What began out in the suburbs as a controlled access four lane arterial has become something of a hybrid roadway, still with its median barrier, but the intersections are less like a highway intersection with exit ramps and flyovers and more like a city cross street. Yet the roadway is still needed to carry its high volume of through traveling commuters.<br /><br />Into this setting, let us consider the consequences of developing or re-developing, the other G 2.0 parcels on Route 9 near Cypress St. To orient you that would be the Audy Gas Station, and the 303 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Boylston</span> St. site on the north side of Route 9 and the Volkswagen Dealer, a small Electric sub-station and the U-Haul on the south side. The rest of the land along Route 9 between Cypress and Washington is zoned either G 1.0 or M 1.0 (CAM) and was not included in my "build-out" analysis.<br /><br />The rough estimate of additional peak hour trips associated with the build-out would be:<br /><br />AM Peak Hour: 1, 037<br />PM Peak Hour: 1, 355<br /><br />Peak hour in this case refers to the peak hour on Route 9, not the peak hour at the development site, which because it is a medical office building will be busy with patients coming and going all day. These numbers may be too high, because they are higher than counts taken locally, but I also believe the consultant underestimated the "background growth" when they did not include the large additional developments in the area and assumed a growth factor of only .5% per year in volumes. Perhaps high gas prices will help achieve this low growth level. While these numbers alone may seem distressing, what is particularly problematic is the fact that at any given time at least half of the vehicles coming or going will need to reverse direction in order to access or leave their point of origin.<br /><br />Despite the fact that these sites are very near to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Brookline</span> Hills T-stop, they are valued and perceived by potential builders as auto-oriented building sites. Our current zoning code, with its on-site parking requirements and separation of uses, encourages and reinforces these perceptions. The resulting proposals are then not surprisingly best suited to a suburban setting with good highway access and plenty of parking to accommodate everyone accessing the site via automobile.<br /><br />In the case of the land near Cypress St. and Route 9 it was estimated that 65% of the people coming or going to the site would be from the west. So, in the case of buildings on the north side of Route 9 accessing the site necessitates a U-turn. The 111 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Boylston</span> St. consultant predicted that everyone would achieve this maneuver at the Walnut St. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">jughandle</span>. This requires the reversing vehicles to swing around the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">jughandle</span> then turn right onto High St. and immediately left onto Route 9 at the Washington St./Route 9 intersection. This intersection was already functioning at LOS D in 2007 during the AM peak hour. With the addition of 111 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Boylston</span> it is predicted to function at LOS E. With higher through volumes on Route 9 and/or High/Washington St. the LOS will further degrade. This is before we add in any additional development on the remaining Route 9 parcels. In addition to the limiting factors of high through volumes on Route 9 this intersection is severely constrained in another way. The closeness of the High/Walnut Street intersection to the Washington/High/Route 9 intersection means that only about 3 left turn vehicles can fit in the left turn lane. Two source lanes of traffic are competing for those three spaces, cars traveling north on High St. and those folks who are reversing direction from the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">jughandle</span>. With high demand from both sources, it becomes increasingly difficult for the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">jughandle</span> cars to ever get into this lane. The entire signal cycle length at Washington/High/Route 9 is 90 seconds. That means there are 45 cycles per hour. 45 times 3 cars per cycle and this intersection can "process" at a maximum (if everything works perfectly) of 135 left turns. The 111 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Boylston</span> St. study predicted a demand of 129 left turns here during the AM peak hour. The project developers for 111 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Boylston</span> St. are contributing some mitigation dollars to the Gateway East <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">jughandle</span> improvement, which is postulated to aid the functioning of this intersection by allowing more space for vehicles waiting to make the left onto High St. This is a marginal improvement to the basic limitation of the left turn at Washington/High/Route 9.<br /><br />For my build-out analysis, instead of assuming that everyone who needed to reverse direction (east to west) would do so at the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">jughandle</span>, I anticipated the capacity limitations of this intersection and assumed that half of the people (124 during the AM peak) would instead turn left at Cypress, (no easy trick either) then right on Davis and then right on Route 9. This circuitous route is not self-evident and diversion attempts will, until they are learned, result in circling and wandering before a new route is learned. This alternative route is likely to be used even more than this, given the degree of difficulty I have described at using the left turn at Washington/High/Route 9. Half of those not diverted to Davis are still going to be trying to turn left at the failed Washington/High/Route 9 intersection, or will be executing illegal U-turns or finding other routes.<br /><br />For development on the south side of Route 9, those leaving the sites who wish to return to the west will simply turn right on High Street, right on Walnut and then either right on Cypress or continue straight. I estimated an additional 490 vehicles in the PM peak hour on Walnut. While these vehicle numbers may be high, they nevertheless illustrate the inevitable result of additional auto-dependent development of these particular parcels, namely, the reverse direction move will be accommodated on Davis and Walnut Streets, two residential streets that are already suffering the physical and environmental assault of too much traffic.<br /><br />Other roadways that serve as limited access commuter routes, such as Route 1 in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Dedham</span> for instance while also accommodating intensive retail development has done so by providing an elaborate system of controlled access ramps, frontage roads and signalized turnarounds. Clearly, we are not looking to develop to this intensity, but it illustrates the elaborate engineering machinations necessary to accommodate the disparate functions of through travel, localized access and intensive roadside development.<br /><br />Some would choose to simply disregard the needs of the through traveler, taking "possession" as it were of "our part" of Route 9. However, this is a short-term and self-defeating proposition. Mobility for commerce, such as delivery trucks, tradesmen, customers and employees are all essential to the fabric of our economy. By developing highly intensive auto-dependent commercial uses on these particular parcels we are causing a much greater problem than we are solving. As currently configured these sites are attractive to business because of the amount of traffic that passes by. This is why a use like the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">VW</span> dealer, while we may not think it optimal, is at least in terms of function, sensible. It is seen by a lot of people, but does not "generate" a great deal of trips. Same goes for the gas station. Gas stations aren't destinations and pull their customers from the passing flow, thereby not adding to existing volumes. Audy's has its own difficulties with the driveway on Cypress being so close to the intersection, but that's another issue.<br /><br />But, it doesn't have to be this way, there are other alternatives, which are more in keeping with the goals outlined in our Comprehensive Plan and in harmony with a more sustainable vision for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Brookline</span>. This corner, Cypress and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Boylston</span> St. has some of the bones necessary to become a walkable, mixed use "village" that takes advantage of its T access and allows nearby residents to fulfill some of their daily shopping needs without driving. Altering our zoning to more precisely define mixed use guidelines and to devise an overall vision for public realm amenities will allow an alternative vision to take shape. Thereby, reducing the negative traffic impacts on our neighborhoods and Route 9 itself and maximizing the value of our transit resources and residential density, making for a more effective and longer-term economic development strategy. These goals were loosely stated in the Comprehensive Plan and further refinement could help us articulate a creative and specific plan for a new neighborhood commercial area. The Town will be seeking a smart growth planning grant from EPA or other sources to do just that.<br /><br />[where: 02446]Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893479544324765391.post-52172678336061279062008-07-23T21:40:00.001-04:002008-07-25T20:24:59.246-04:00What Kind of Housing?What on first blush might seem like an insignificant residential addition to an existing building near Coolidge Corner, has fanned the flames of a long standing debate. The request to "legalize" a four bedroom basement apartment has brought up many issues and concerns. The assessor's database lists the building as a three family. It is set mid-block in a row of attached three story walk-ups, some of which are condos, some rental apartments and others owner-occupied three-families.<br /><br />This proposal could be an object lesson, giving us an opportunity to examine some deeply held beliefs; some ideals we may or may not prescribe to and some prejudices we may not like admitting we have. It also highlights some serious procedural problems that have simply made matters worse.<br /><br />First off, we should look at the specifics of the proposal. The building is currently owned by an out of town landlord, who bought the building a year and a half ago and applied for a building permit to rehab the basement apartment, converting a 2 bedroom one bath unit to a 4 bedroom 2 bath unit. Amazingly, he was given the permit. Next door is another rental building. Two doors down, is an owner occupied condominium. All of these buildings are attached and were built together in 1920, and present a unified facade to the street.<br /><br />Visually, the differences in ownership and occupancy are apparent. The condo building has a beautiful wood door and looks well maintained with fresh plantings gracing the stairway. The building in question's front door is the standard issue aluminum frame and the front yard has a short chain link fence bordering its weed-filled yard. The newly installed electrical boxes were mounted <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">prominently</span> on the front of the building and have already begun to rust.<br /><br />The current owner of the building bought a three unit building. Of course he must have known about the then two bedroom unit in the basement, but the town didn't. Neither the current owner nor the past has paid taxes on a four unit building. The other similar buildings on this block that do have basement units have small one bedroom units, approximately 680 sq. ft in size. The proposed unit is 1, 848 sq. ft. The notice for the Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing on this application states that a total 5 Special Permits and 8 Variances are required in order for this unit to be legalized. Clearly, this should tell us something about how incompatible this intensity of usage is with the parcels' zoning.<br /><br />Many residents in this neighborhood (myself included) have complained about the noise and destruction caused by roving bands of drunken students. This is a very real and disturbing phenomena. For those who live near to the party of origin, sleep is an elusive goal. While it is not possible to predict or dictate who will live in this basement unit or any rental housing for that matter, the proposed configuration of many bedrooms in a basement unit with as much parking as possible is geared towards that segment of the rental market. Families tend to seek out buildings with other families and professionals. They value quiet and they also value lots of light and air and are often willing to make do with fewer bedrooms to achieve these benefits.<br /><br />The perception that the number of students living in North <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Brookline</span></span></span> has increased in recent decades, is in fact true and is reflected in the 1990 and 2000 Census data for tract #4002 (roughly Precinct 2). The number of 18 -24 year <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">olds</span></span> increased from 672 to 1,078 which, as a percentage of the population is an increase from 12.16% to 18.37%. Meanwhile the number of adults aged 25+ declined from 4, 027 to 3,951, which is, as a percentage from 73% to 67% of the population.<br /><br />Many individuals who support both affordable housing and the wisdom of building housing in proximity to our transit resources cite these reasons as supporting arguments for this particular conversion. This reveals a lack of attention to the particulars of design, issues of crowding and the functional ramifications to a setting that will come to bear in the immediate vicinity and beyond. Objections to density are usually a result of concerns about crowding, lack of open space, poor space planning and lack of usable and pleasant pedestrian/public spaces. These are issues that are real and will be a result of this proposal. It is an example of density done badly. A three story attached walk-up, as the building is now, and as it is zoned for, is a moderately dense residential setting, one that is adequately dense to support both public transit and neighborhood commercial areas and therefore is not an appropriate location for additional density. An average density of 13 dwelling units per acre, which is what the M1.5 FAR zone is, is a standard level of density acknowledged in urban planning practice as an appropriate target level for Transit Oriented Development.<br /><br />There are other areas where additional housing density could be much more appropriately accommodated. Primarily, as upper levels in buildings within our business districts. This mixed use configuration has the additional advantage of maximizing the potential for non-auto transportation, due to residents' walking proximity to retail, services, employment and transit.<br /><br />Another option is the adaptive re-use of existing large single-family homes, through the addition of accessory units, etc. This is something that the Housing Advisory Board is exploring as a policy proposal. This idea addresses several significant trends simultaneously, namely the increasing financial difficulty of maintaining a large home and the aforementioned <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">diminution</span> of household sizes and the need for more, smaller housing options. If the additional housing were located within walking of distance of transit and neighborhood business districts and parking were limited, another sustainable development goal would be met. While there are many aspects of this proposal that must be carefully thought out, I believe it identifies and foresees changes that will occur nonetheless due to trends in demographics, energy costs, economics, etc. It makes sense to get out ahead of the curve and manage the change, rather than having it simply overwhelm us. It would be better to allow and manage accessory units rather than lose a great deal of our housing stock and neighborhood character to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">teardowns</span></span>. Without very well articulated <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">formbased</span></span> codes, new building may not be compatible with existing structures.<br /><br />Adaptive use of existing homes and structures has significant energy and therefore environmental benefits. While it may be true that our older buildings are not as energy efficient as brand new <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">LEED</span></span> buildings, structures built before WWII are more efficient than anything built between 1945-2000. Existing buildings have a great deal of embedded energy, and their re-use avoids the destruction and construction of vast amounts of materials. If we can retrofit them with some energy saving materials and technologies, we will have made significant strides towards providing energy efficient and needed housing. We will also preserve our historic architecture where appropriate and maintain the visual qualities of neighborhood <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">streetscapes</span></span>, avoiding <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">teardowns</span></span> and incompatibly scaled infill.<br /><br />We need to think a bit more clearly about just what we mean when we say affordable housing. What segment of the market is truly <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">under served</span> and what segment of the market would we like to accommodate? Who do we want to attract to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Brookline</span></span>? Is it in our best interest to invest in creating housing opportunities for long term residents who feel vested in their community? Is this a goal we can actually do something about? How do our policies and planning practices impact these personal decisions?<br /><br />As someone who is directly impacted by the influx of students to my area, I do not see it as good town policy to promote the building of housing designed and configured to attract students. Besides the directly negative impacts to the neighborhood, there are consequences to the community from accommodating a larger transient population. It is true that we of course cannot dictate who chooses to rent a particular unit, but we can design our zoning ordinances and building codes, and enforce them in a manner consistent with, the intent to augment our housing stock with units suitable for the growing segment of our population in need of reasonably priced housing. Namely, working families, middle-aged singles, older adults, single parent households, etc. While there are opportunities and programs for low income rental and ownership housing, there is a lack of housing in the middle range. This is the population that is being squeezed out by landlords catering to students, and in terms of potential home owners, middle income residents are loathe to purchase or remain in areas rife with the high levels of student residents. Therefore, the influx of students to an area can <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">dissuade</span> a potential property owner from purchasing a home in that area. The homeowners still there have been dealt a blow to both their quality of life and their property's value.<br /><br />Sadly, in the case of the basement apartment, some felt that because a mistake had been made in granting the original building permit, that the zoning relief should therefore be granted. While the property owner may have a legitimate complaint about this mistake, this is a separate issue from whether or not this intensity of use is appropriate for this site. This later question is the one before the zoning board of appeals and it is upon this and the criteria for granting special permit and variances, especially the impacts to the neighborhood, that must take <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">precedence</span>.<br /><br />This <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">occurrence</span> has focused a lens on the need for consistency and diligence in permitting procedures and practices, causing many to feel a lack of trust and security. This is unfortunate and we should openly talk about and address this issue.<br /><br />[where:02446]Lindahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08535172440009374020noreply@blogger.com0