The February 10th Sustainable Brookline Conference was a great beginning. Gathering together with a common purpose facilitated focused thinking on specific measures, as each group communicated their unique perspectives on potential sustainability measures. It was clear that much thought, discussion and hard work had gone into creating the many important and valuable suggestions.
But more importantly, there was a deeper understanding that grew as the ideas were voiced around that table and a vision of a more sustainable Brookline took shape. All of our measures are necessarily interconnected and the ability to foresee (at least to some extent!) the impacts and reactions of each requires both a depth of understanding and a willingness to think beyond our usual ways of doing things. Tremendous efficiencies will be gained through combining some of the initiatives and allocating resources and responsibilities strategically. There is a depth of commitment that is a natural outgrowth of lifelong passions for many of us and the context of the enormous challenge of climate change was bringing us together in a new ways. Working together holds the promise of synergistically increasing our effectiveness and creativity. Continued communication and information sharing will be key to realizing this potential.
While many in attendance were loathe to create yet another committee, or to make an existing committee responsible for advancing the "sustainability agenda" it is nonetheless apparent that some sustained effort at continued coordination must be maintained. It was suggested that this take the form of a virtual community, which may well be an ideal solution. It was also noted that certain interests were not represented at the forum, such as local food activists, and other town boards. This only highlights the fact that the rubric of sustainability touches every aspect of policy, planning, our economy and culture.
Innovation and leadership in response to climate change has blossomed around the country at the state and local government levels. The reasons for this are two-fold. Obviously, we have had an appalling lack of leadership at the federal level. But, for many types of initiatives the nimble, location-sensitive, bottom up strategies, tailored to local culture and preferences have the best chance at being appropriate and will more likely be adopted and integrated into life-styles for the long-term.
Success in moving forward towards a more sustainable future is dependent upon unleashing individuals' and organizations abilities to perceive the long-term consequences and interconnections of their actions and to stimulate creative problem-solving. We need a way to stimulate "sustainable thinking" when we are going about our usual town decision-making processes. How might this be achieved? How about having a "sustainability coordinator" who would draw up a list of questions with considerations and general goals for each department, which would have to be answered before any purchase, policy, plan or budget decision could be made. Of course this list of questions would need to be tailored for the department in question. In addition to the list of questions, suggestions, input and feedback from those doing the job should be sought. This will likely yield the greatest benefit. A one on one conversation with the co-ordinator would ensue. None of this is regulatory, it is just a way to get the wheels turning in a different direction, instead of just doing everything in the same way because we always have, we can stand back and re-evaluate. Rather than beginning by imposing strict mandates that more often than not miss the mark and have unforetold negative consequences, why not instead propose general goals and objectives and see what kinds of ideas people come up with.
Just as federal grants programs stimulate research and innovation, we could use local grants to bring learning, excitement and fun to the challenge of sustainability. In the realm of product and business development how about having a Brookline Community Foundation grant that would be awarded to a promising business idea based on using locally sourced or recycled materials to create something that fits into a sustainable lifestyle framework. Part of the grant award could be expertise in business development or marketing donated by local professionals. I can imagine a great many young Brookliner's having a field day with this challenge. It would be a wonderful way to generate local economic activity, local sustainability awareness, and encourage some of our home grown talent.
On a grander scale, we are faced with the challenge of our antiquated and cobbled together zoning code whose provisions run counter to many features we might seek in a sustainable community. I have written previously of one of the most obvious of these, our excessive parking requirements. There are many other features of a livable community that a well crafted code could help us achieve. Some of them are focused on creating the kind of public realm we wish to live in, others are more systemic, looking at larger issues of infrastructure investments, open space protections, etc. Instead, as evidenced by the recent spate of Town Meeting warrants and serious conflicts that continue to arise, we are left to deal with each new proposal as best we can, while lacking an appropriately detailed vision or overall direction. A sustainable community is first and foremost a livable one.
How do we solve this conundrum? I see the problem as a fundamental lack of dialogue, communication and understanding. While many see the failure of our recent planning efforts as evidence of either our inability to work together or be productive or a failure of the entire endeavor of planning, I see it rather as a need for professional help. And I don't mean another consultant who comes in and tells us what we should do. No, the kind of process I have in mind is a very participatory and iterative process of developing plans know as charettes. While I don't want to get into all the specifics here, as I am simply outlining an idea, the point is there are professionals and methods that facilitate community led planning initiatives, and were we to go through this process of learning and making the hard choices and debating the trade-offs for ourselves, what comes out at the end is something that we all can own and that will help us craft both a sustainable Brookline and a community that honors our past while accommodating the future.
As a long term resident of Brookline and a professional planner, I am convinced that we must do something different along these lines. We have too much to lose and the pressures for new development will only increase as the desirability of our location continues to become enhanced, as oil prices rise, large single family homes on large lots in the suburbs become more untenable etc. This trend can work to our advantage if we are well prepared and manage this new growth to enhance our community.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
1285 Beacon Revisited
Now that we've dissected what is wrong with this building from a design and pedestrian experience point of view, I still can't leave it alone. For there are other serious shortcomings in terms of its function and contribution (or lack thereof) to our local economy and community. These shortcomings boil down to parking and the proliferation of chain stores in Coolidge Corner.
This building houses 21,000 sq. ft of retail space, which is divided amongst its various tenants as follows: Health Club: 12,000 sq. ft., Staples Copy & Print Shop 4, 800 sq. ft. , unleased retail space, 4,200 sq. ft. Like communities all across the country, our zoning ordinance contains parking requirements that are based on the premise that the existence of these stores will "generate" the demand for a certain amount of automobile travel, destined for these destinations. Someone, living somewhere, has the desire to go to Staples to get those copies made. In the case of our zoning code, we have assumed they are going to satisfy that desire via an automobile. To accommodate this "demand" a certain amount of parking has been provided. In this case that amount is 49 spaces, enough to handle 49 independent decisions to go to these three businesses in a car, at any given moment.
However, it would occur to even a casual observer that these establishments exist steps away from one of the most heavily used T stops on the entire MBTA system, as well as being smack dab in the middle of a dense residential area. Therefore anyone wanting to go to these stores who lives within walking distance of the T or the store does not have to drive a car. However, by providing all this parking we are not encouraging the use of these alternatives, instead we are accommodating excess cars at the expense of the environment and the community. In terms of these particular stores it seems particularly unlikely that patrons will come from distant places, given the ubiquity in the area of Staples and health clubs, etc. already.
Another problem with the parking is that it was built on-site for the exclusive use of the buildings' patrons. What's wrong with this? It is inefficient and anti-social. Let me explain. The assumptions behind on-site parking are 1) People making the trip to Staples are just going to Staples, as if it were set out in a field somewhere by itself. They are not coming to Coolidge Corner to take care of a number of errands. They are in a hurry and will come in, transact their business and leave. If they are going somewhere else nearby, they are expected to get back in their car and drive there, requiring yet another parking space at this new destination. This is the dominant thinking behind almost all planning and parking rate regulations.
Assuming we are trying to achieve an appropriate balance between maximizing alternative transportation use and providing the minimum amount of parking necessary, what parking we do have must be used in the most efficient way possible. Shared public parking, located in such a way as to be accessible to the majority of businesses within a district is vastly superior to private parking. It allows for "park-once" behavior for multiple trips, reducing both the overall amount of parking spaces needed and the amount of travel necessary. Shared public parking also accommodates the ebb and flow of demand needs, variations in hours of operations, differences in peak seasonal fluctuations, etc. Static dedicated parking lots have none of these efficiencies.
What is special about Coolidge Corner is that it was built before the automobile dominated our built environment. We have the perfect model for how to build "walkable urbanism". However, our ordinances do not allow us to do this. Instead, we are struggling to graft on the ultra-convenient auto-access model of development onto a pre-existing, dense pedestrian oriented commercial district. This is a recipe for failure. You cannot have it both ways.
Boston NOW, the newest free commuter paper, named Coolidge Corner as its Editors Choice for best Outdoor Shopping. The operative word here is Outdoor. An on-site private parking garage, such as we have at 1285 Beacon, makes it possible to patronize the businesses at 1285 Beacon without ever going outside. While this makes it possible to avoid inclement weather, it also makes it impossible for you to have a chance encounter with your neighbor, or to see a notice on the light pole for a garage sale, or to appreciate that new piece of public art, hear that snippet of Chinese being spoken by the pair next to you on the sidewalk, or have gotten that boost from the smile the young woman gave you, just because, etc. In other words you do not get that experience of being part of community. We are drawn to commercial areas like Coolidge Corner precisely because of these experiences and feelings. It is not just about buying and selling. Serendipity and spontaneity are given an opportunity to enter our life. If we had left our car in the shared lot half a block a way and walked, or better yet taken the T or walked , we might have had some of these encounters, Parking in the private garage is convenient and dare I say, boring.
And it is in the realm of human interaction that we can truly appreciate our locally owned and operated businesses. While the direct economic benefits are well documented (I have heard estimates as high as .45 out of every $1 spent at a local business goes back into the local economy), the social benefits are incalculable. Consider the value in terms of continuity, trust, and simple human connection brought to your life from the local shop owner who can look up what special ingredients your grandmother ordered for a holiday dinner. Cherished childhood memories of favorite treats or pass times are passed on to the next generation. We know them and they know us. There is trust. This counts for a lot in this day and age.
I experienced first hand the difference in community involvement from our local businesses when I was fundraising for the Minot Rose Garden restoration. I visited most of the businesses in CC and spoke to many of the owners. While some of the national chains had awakened to the fact that they too had a role to play in being active local participants, for many of them I was told to write letters to corporate headquarters, etc. Only our local businesses welcomed the opportunity to sell our note cards or display our brochures, again coming down to a personal connection. They support many valuable cultural organizations and contribute in so many vital ways.
Most would agree that keeping and promoting our local businesses is a positive. Buying local is our most powerful consumer tool. In terms of sustainability the more locally sourced and produced our consumables are, the better off we are. Perhaps, local manufacturing incubator facilities would be a good investment, along the lines of the shared commercial kitchen facility that allows start-up food based businesses to bypass the necessity of outfitting or renting a full commercial kitchen.
But what can we do on a town policy level to help achieve these goals, and how does this relate to 1285 Beacon? For one thing, by having to build all that on-site private parking (which is excessive and inefficient) the cost of building is greater. This cost ultimately gets passed on to the tenants in the form of higher rents. Lowering the parking rates could help in some small way.
But we need to lower the bar even further, by creatively allowing start-up retail establishments to keep their overhead down. Perhaps by rehabbing a larger space and dividing it into smaller spaces. Or allowing push carts. Or maybe even making locally owned businesses on the first floor of a new retail development a Public Benefit incentive, along with the bonuses allowed to developers for affordable housing or open space. If we had some sort of all season food market, local retailers could easily sell their offerings, without an excessively high rental rate.
In New York city a neighborhood merchants group (I believe its the East Village) are sponsoring a free public transit train to their destination. Other communities are experimenting with "Local Business Supporter" cards. In this scheme, members pay a one time membership fee and are issued a card. This card entitles them to a 10% discount whenever they spend above a certain amount. That 10% can either be pocketed by the member or donated to the local non-profit of their choice. This is a way of systematizing a relationship that often informally occurs. It would encourage local shopping and solidify the mutual support between shopper business owner and community non-profits.
These are just a few ideas. This is a complex and difficult issue that many communities are grappling with. In terms of serving some of our basic necessities it is not always a bad thing to have a national chain, again the right balance is key.
But it does make one wish we had brought something new and local to our block with this new building. Instead we will be gazing in at the back of copy machines, and because of some mix-up with the elevation and construction plans, there is an elevator and stairs to mount as soon as one enters the door.
[where: 1285 Beacon St., Brookline, MA 02446]
Friday, February 22, 2008
What's Wrong with this Building?
A new structure has become part of our streetscape. 1285 Beacon Street, next to the Post Office is a two story structure with 21,000 sq. ft. of retail space. On the first floor is Staples. We are unable to miss the identity of this tenant, as the ubiquitous red and white glowing Staples logo/sign and its equally constant companion Copy and Print Shop signs are firmly affixed to the buildings' facade. I won't get into the wisdom of the Staples corporate logic in choosing their locations other than to say, in my estimation there were already two other Staples within walking distance from my abode... Above the Staples will be a healthclub. Below the building, 49 parking spaces will allow those who wish to, to drive right to their destination and park, in defiance of the sites' location, within steps of the T and surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods.
But, parking and the chain storification of Coolidge Corner are surprisingly not the subject of this blog. What I find most disquieting is the building itself and its designs' utter lack of sensitivity to either the context of its setting and its down-right hostile pedestrian interface. Let's first look at how the building "fits" with its neighbors. Beacon Street as a whole is on the National Register of Historic Places. This has of course not saved us from getting some monster buildings in the past, but it highlights the fact that the corridor's history has a story to tell about how Brookline came to be built the way it is and how, in its architecture we can read the progression of taste and lifestyles through exemplary examples of housing types built to be the best. This should at least cause an architect designing a new building destined to reside here to be thoughtful and considerate of context.
It is hard to see any evidence of that thoughtfulness in this building. It appears instead to be some sort of amalgam of 60's fads, with the geometric angles formed by the triangular window with a wedge of black polished granite and 1920's art moderne represented with the rounded window on the end of the building, metal window casings and the flush mounted "art decoesque" light fixtures. The yellow rough stone seems to be chosen to contrast with the smoothness of the granite, but is an uninviting material in and of itself. The roof is flat and there is no detailing or ornament happening at the roof line. Over all it looks as if it were designed to look good from across the street as you drive by, with no regard to the traditional red brick, gabled entrance structure of the post office next door, or the predominate style of architecture on Beacon Street as a whole, the bowed front townhouse made with red brick or stone. Next door, across Charles Street, is the beautiful Elizabeth P. Sears house a Colonial Revival built in 1889. Now, of course one would not expect this new building to mimic or reconcile all these divergent and powerful influences. But surely, with just a minimum of restraint and effort, a structure could have been designed that would have been both distinctive and harmonious.
But I concede that my comments so far are to some extent matters of taste, and perhaps there are those of you who love this new building! After all we do already have a jumble of styles going on and is some cases it actually works.
What I find most unsettling is the experience of walking past the building. Every building creates the public space around it. Here is where this building has failed its Beacon Street mission miserably. The smooth shiny solid granite slabs, forming a sharp angle (see photo above) as you approach from the west are nothing but hard and cold. There is no detail to attract your eye. It is an expanse of stone. The scale of the windows and granite "accents" is all wrong. It was designed for a distant viewer only, not someone walking by. Then there is the matter of the doors and windows. The first door is recessed, which makes it much more inviting, but the other door further down the building is not and therefore functions more like a window. The windows are too high off the ground to begin with. Because of the declining grade of the street, by the time you reach the end of the building the windows are very high. You are eye level with the window sill, with nothing but a rough stone wall with a fire hose connection pressing in on you. The cold hard materials of the building are overwhelming your experience.
All of these details may seem small. But the effect they have on how we relate to the building and its contents are profound. How comfortable are we standing on the street window-shopping? Do we feel welcomed or threatened. Does the store and its merchandise reach out to us and communicate with us as we pass, creating a feeling of community? These are basic biological responses.
Now is we compare these features with the features of those buildings elsewhere in Coolidge Corner we identify the significant differences. Just what is it about the design of the shops along Harvard Street or elsewhere on Beacon Street that make it so pleasurable to walk along the sidewalk to window shop, see friends, shop, etc.? Look at the pictures of Paper Source and the portion of Harvard Street north of the Arcade above. In both of these cases and throughout the district shop windows are positioned low, not more than 1 to 2 ft above the ground. Doorways are recessed and frequent, making the entrances easily identifiable and increasing the display area for the store. A pleasing rhythm or "articulation" of the building frontage is created, and even if the store itself is large, frequently recessed doors helps break-up the frontage wall, maintaining this visual and spatial rhythm. The awnings add a nice softening touch too, and help shops express identity. We are fortunate to have inherited these older buildings in their setting of a tightly woven street grid.
If we implemented a few basic building guidelines, our new structures could continue to create the inviting and visually stimulating human scaled shopping area we enjoy elsewhere in Coolidge Corner. We could prevent another building with the types of problems we see at 1285 Beacon Street from occurring again in the future. For instance, by specifying the maximum height that store front windows should be located off the sidewalk, (for instance 12" - 24"), requiring entryways to be recessed by at least 2 ft. and specifying that recessed doorways would occur approximately every 20 ft. new buildings would have those key features that are all important to creating the look and feel of a pleasing walkable shopping district. Build-to lines would maintain a consistent building frontage line and height maximums would ensure a human scaled proportion between building and street. Perhaps we would include specifications about window proportions and dimensions to avoid the problems of scale we see at 1285.
These types of prescriptive requirements would be welcome by both those designing the buildings and those reviewing those designs. It is all clear. We know what we want and the developer knows what we want, so they do not need to dread the never ending process of vague objections.
These types of ordinances are called form-based codes because they focus on the form of the building rather than just the use and basic mass of a building as traditional zoning does. This is in recognition of the fact that the form of the built environment creates our shared public realm. This is a seismic shift in how we regulate building and is a valuable tool that helps us create human-centered environments. If we wish to build a better Brookline, we should consider adopting this type of building ordinance.
[where: 02446]
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Sustainable Brookline Conference
Last Sunday a gathering was held at Wheelock College, called Sustainable Brookline. Coordinated by many individuals, most notably the ad hoc Steering Committee for a Sustainable Brookline, its stated mission was to "develop a coordinated strategy for making Brookline a truly sustainable community". Over 60 members of our community gave up their Sunday afternoon to meet, discuss and plan future coordinated actions. Don Weitzman of the Climate Change Action Committee ran the meeting with supreme efficiency, ensuring that everyone present was able to participate and the ideas continued to flow.
Many groups and individuals were represented. Each presented up to three "actions" that would bring Brookline closer to sustainability. Many, many good ideas came forward, some were clearly predictable, doable and valuable such as expanding recycling programs to businesses, others were more innovative and perhaps challenging to implement, such as the Conservation Commission's Green Streets program that seeks to manage storm water flows with vegetation. Building, energy and vehicle efficiencies were all pinpointed by numerous groups. Many spoke of the need to promote alternative transportation including bikes, transit and walking while reducing auto-dependence. Hugh Mattison spoke of the need to interest young people in street tree stewardship through a tree buddy program. The GreenSpace Alliance stressed the education of youth too in it's presentation, clearly thought was given to the need look ahead.
Our actions are intermeshed and carry rippling repercussions. Some of these connections were identified at the conference. Transportation Board policies impact the Bicycle Advisory Committee's planned bike routes. Implementing green building standards will redirect a building contractor's business. As my previous post outlines, our zoning ordinances' requirement for excessive parking has far reaching impacts on the livability of our community. Future discussions will hopefully bring into focus the benefits of promoting localized economies, food production and social structures.
And yet, the purpose of the gathering was no doubt in response to the growing awareness of the need for action to prepare for the changes that will undoubtedly come our way. Sitting in a room full of "environmentalists", (an antiquated term I feel because it now has a history of adversarial politics and "holier than thou" attitudes that have not been particularly constructive), took me back to the original Earth Day, I vividly recall participating in it. I was in grade school, I pinned a "Give Earth a Chance" button on my shirt and we cleaned up our play yard! It seems almost ridiculous that a species living on the planet had to have an Earth Day at all, but there it is, I guess we did. The river just down the street from my school churned and foamed a putrid green with the effluent from the paper mill just upstream. It eventually got cleaned up. I am sure everyone around me had similar memories. I recall too, learning in college courses about the true impacts of our industries and way of life. We studied natural resource economics, world food systems, community environmental field studies and resource dispute resolution, all trying to bring reason and humanity back to the center of things.
In truth we are all in this together, going along for the ride. We are all both part of the problem and potentially part of the solution. It was inspiring to see so many dedicated individuals who were truly trying to put forward positive solutions. I salute each and every one of you.
Perhaps future generations will read over the minutes of our meeting and think, "thank goodness they finally started to get their act together and tried to do something." Or perhaps they will say, "it was too late and they just didn't know it, and the things they talked about didn't make any difference anyway". There were those voices at the conference who urged a more drastic reaction and response. (Like what?, they didn't say.) Fear and panic do not seem very useful. While others spoke of the need to process and adjust. So in the end, I believe it was the middle road that was taken. A call for action within the state of things as we know them, never losing sight of the need to continually push ourselves for further progress.
While I do not have faith in technological solutions alone, as some do, I believe in our ability to adapt, change, evolve, and innovate. Solutions will be combinations of things more intertwined and complex than we can imagine, an infinitely dispersed network of problem solvers will come up with a great many things. So I guess I am a glass half full person. I thank the ad hoc committee for organizing the conference and look forward to seeing the progress we make working together towards a sustainable Brookline.
[where:02446]
Many groups and individuals were represented. Each presented up to three "actions" that would bring Brookline closer to sustainability. Many, many good ideas came forward, some were clearly predictable, doable and valuable such as expanding recycling programs to businesses, others were more innovative and perhaps challenging to implement, such as the Conservation Commission's Green Streets program that seeks to manage storm water flows with vegetation. Building, energy and vehicle efficiencies were all pinpointed by numerous groups. Many spoke of the need to promote alternative transportation including bikes, transit and walking while reducing auto-dependence. Hugh Mattison spoke of the need to interest young people in street tree stewardship through a tree buddy program. The GreenSpace Alliance stressed the education of youth too in it's presentation, clearly thought was given to the need look ahead.
Our actions are intermeshed and carry rippling repercussions. Some of these connections were identified at the conference. Transportation Board policies impact the Bicycle Advisory Committee's planned bike routes. Implementing green building standards will redirect a building contractor's business. As my previous post outlines, our zoning ordinances' requirement for excessive parking has far reaching impacts on the livability of our community. Future discussions will hopefully bring into focus the benefits of promoting localized economies, food production and social structures.
And yet, the purpose of the gathering was no doubt in response to the growing awareness of the need for action to prepare for the changes that will undoubtedly come our way. Sitting in a room full of "environmentalists", (an antiquated term I feel because it now has a history of adversarial politics and "holier than thou" attitudes that have not been particularly constructive), took me back to the original Earth Day, I vividly recall participating in it. I was in grade school, I pinned a "Give Earth a Chance" button on my shirt and we cleaned up our play yard! It seems almost ridiculous that a species living on the planet had to have an Earth Day at all, but there it is, I guess we did. The river just down the street from my school churned and foamed a putrid green with the effluent from the paper mill just upstream. It eventually got cleaned up. I am sure everyone around me had similar memories. I recall too, learning in college courses about the true impacts of our industries and way of life. We studied natural resource economics, world food systems, community environmental field studies and resource dispute resolution, all trying to bring reason and humanity back to the center of things.
In truth we are all in this together, going along for the ride. We are all both part of the problem and potentially part of the solution. It was inspiring to see so many dedicated individuals who were truly trying to put forward positive solutions. I salute each and every one of you.
Perhaps future generations will read over the minutes of our meeting and think, "thank goodness they finally started to get their act together and tried to do something." Or perhaps they will say, "it was too late and they just didn't know it, and the things they talked about didn't make any difference anyway". There were those voices at the conference who urged a more drastic reaction and response. (Like what?, they didn't say.) Fear and panic do not seem very useful. While others spoke of the need to process and adjust. So in the end, I believe it was the middle road that was taken. A call for action within the state of things as we know them, never losing sight of the need to continually push ourselves for further progress.
While I do not have faith in technological solutions alone, as some do, I believe in our ability to adapt, change, evolve, and innovate. Solutions will be combinations of things more intertwined and complex than we can imagine, an infinitely dispersed network of problem solvers will come up with a great many things. So I guess I am a glass half full person. I thank the ad hoc committee for organizing the conference and look forward to seeing the progress we make working together towards a sustainable Brookline.
[where:02446]
Thursday, January 31, 2008
If We Build it They Will Drive
While there is no shortage of opinions in this town, one thing we pretty much all agree on is our affection for it. We might differ on a few particulars, but the list of things we all rattle off about what we love about Brookline usually sounds remarkably similar.
It is somewhat disheartening then to see the escalating divisiveness and animosity around issues of planning and development. This is not surprising and our community is certainly not alone in finding ourselves mired in controversy. These are big questions with huge impacts, and depending on where you live and how you are impacted it can feel as if the livability of your neighborhood or the financial future of your family depend on the outcome. There are of course laws, procedures and techniques all designed to take into account everyone’s concerns and lead us to just and equitable solutions. I honestly believe we could all come to a remarkable degree of consensus if we could just ratchet down the rhetoric, evaluate some alternatives objectively and think in terms of the overall good of the town and it’s long term future. It’s just not easy.
With our unique governmental structure we do not have a big bureaucracy to do the job for us. All of you who serve on town boards, attend meetings, voice opinions, volunteering your time, you are our bureaucracy. We need a lot more of you. We need new voices. We each bear a unique burden of citizenship that we have inherited by becoming members here. As citizens we need to adopt policies that reflect our collective goals for the future.
There is one set of policies in particular that is resulting in unintended negative consequences to our town and its future. I believe if these negatives were fully revealed, the majority of Brookline residents would not support the policies. I am referring to the amount of parking that must be provided for new and redeveloped housing and businesses. The required rates are set way too high. Now I know parking is one hot issue in this town, but bear with me here.
Let’s talk about the businesses first. Our code requires 1 parking space for every 200 – 350 sq. ft of retail space. This creates a level of parking adequate to service a store out in a field somewhere in the boonies where all the customers are going to drive to that store and the store is the sole destination of that trip. We all know this is not the case in Coolidge Corner or anywhere along Beacon St. Now our code does allow for some reduction for transit accessibility, but not enough. A more transit friendly rate would be 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Requiring on-site parking for each building makes compact development impossible, such as the type of building we enjoy in Coolidge Corner now.
Now let’s talk about housing. The parking requirements per housing unit were recently (2000) raised from 1.5 – 1.8 per unit to 2 to 2.3 per unit (even for studio or one bedroom units). This, despite the fact that according to the 2000 Census Brookline has the 4th highest rank in the country (43.03%) of non-auto commuters for communities between 50,000 and 250,000. Many people cite Brookline’s T accessible location as their reason for locating here. If we maintain adequate neighborhood services, it is entirely possible to live car free in Brookline as many have chosen to do. There are many individuals who do not or cannot drive or own a car and their numbers will only grow. A recent analysis of auto-ownership near Coolidge Corner reveals that 82% of the households have 1 or 0 autos. We are building more parking than residents need.
Transportation costs are the second largest household expense. One way to reduce that is to live in a mobility enhanced location such as Brookline. Our parking requirements add significant costs to new housing, reduces the possibility for on-site open space, encourages driving, burdens our overcrowded roadways (which, by the way are deteriorating and expensive to maintain), and severely limits our ability to provide a variety of housing types and price points. Young professionals are seeking an alternative to the auto dependent lifestyle, but they won’t find it here if we continue to build for the car rather than the alternative transportation user.
Many think that putting the parking underground takes care of the problem. Out of sight, out of mind. The only benefit to this is not having a surface parking lot. We will still have that many more cars on the road, overwhelming our already congested streets, causing more backups, delays, and road rage. More autos bring many negatives; the pedestrian environment is degraded, it’s harder to cross the street, there is more pollution and noise and conflicts from cars turning into driveways across sidewalks. There will be less space on the roadway for bicycles and more car/bike conflicts. The cumulative effect of these conflicts will discourage walking and biking.
Our excessive parking requirements have far reaching environmental impacts as well. First, they encourage driving. In the age of global warming this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Vehicles account for 30% of our nation’s CO2 emissions. We cannot adequately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by driving hybrid cars. For one thing, as population grows, VMT (vehicle miles traveled) will continue to increase. As gas mileage efficiencies increase, the limiting effects of high gas prices will be mitigated, thus causing drivers to drive more. No, the only way to reduce the CO2 from vehicles is to drive less and the only way to drive less is to build in such a way as to facilitate transit and other alternative transportation modes for a greater portion of our travel needs.
If we want to be consistent with the values of environmental sustainability, preservation of open space, enhancing our pedestrian environment and providing a variety of housing types and values then we need to reduce our parking requirements.
[where:02446]
It is somewhat disheartening then to see the escalating divisiveness and animosity around issues of planning and development. This is not surprising and our community is certainly not alone in finding ourselves mired in controversy. These are big questions with huge impacts, and depending on where you live and how you are impacted it can feel as if the livability of your neighborhood or the financial future of your family depend on the outcome. There are of course laws, procedures and techniques all designed to take into account everyone’s concerns and lead us to just and equitable solutions. I honestly believe we could all come to a remarkable degree of consensus if we could just ratchet down the rhetoric, evaluate some alternatives objectively and think in terms of the overall good of the town and it’s long term future. It’s just not easy.
With our unique governmental structure we do not have a big bureaucracy to do the job for us. All of you who serve on town boards, attend meetings, voice opinions, volunteering your time, you are our bureaucracy. We need a lot more of you. We need new voices. We each bear a unique burden of citizenship that we have inherited by becoming members here. As citizens we need to adopt policies that reflect our collective goals for the future.
There is one set of policies in particular that is resulting in unintended negative consequences to our town and its future. I believe if these negatives were fully revealed, the majority of Brookline residents would not support the policies. I am referring to the amount of parking that must be provided for new and redeveloped housing and businesses. The required rates are set way too high. Now I know parking is one hot issue in this town, but bear with me here.
Let’s talk about the businesses first. Our code requires 1 parking space for every 200 – 350 sq. ft of retail space. This creates a level of parking adequate to service a store out in a field somewhere in the boonies where all the customers are going to drive to that store and the store is the sole destination of that trip. We all know this is not the case in Coolidge Corner or anywhere along Beacon St. Now our code does allow for some reduction for transit accessibility, but not enough. A more transit friendly rate would be 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. Requiring on-site parking for each building makes compact development impossible, such as the type of building we enjoy in Coolidge Corner now.
Now let’s talk about housing. The parking requirements per housing unit were recently (2000) raised from 1.5 – 1.8 per unit to 2 to 2.3 per unit (even for studio or one bedroom units). This, despite the fact that according to the 2000 Census Brookline has the 4th highest rank in the country (43.03%) of non-auto commuters for communities between 50,000 and 250,000. Many people cite Brookline’s T accessible location as their reason for locating here. If we maintain adequate neighborhood services, it is entirely possible to live car free in Brookline as many have chosen to do. There are many individuals who do not or cannot drive or own a car and their numbers will only grow. A recent analysis of auto-ownership near Coolidge Corner reveals that 82% of the households have 1 or 0 autos. We are building more parking than residents need.
Transportation costs are the second largest household expense. One way to reduce that is to live in a mobility enhanced location such as Brookline. Our parking requirements add significant costs to new housing, reduces the possibility for on-site open space, encourages driving, burdens our overcrowded roadways (which, by the way are deteriorating and expensive to maintain), and severely limits our ability to provide a variety of housing types and price points. Young professionals are seeking an alternative to the auto dependent lifestyle, but they won’t find it here if we continue to build for the car rather than the alternative transportation user.
Many think that putting the parking underground takes care of the problem. Out of sight, out of mind. The only benefit to this is not having a surface parking lot. We will still have that many more cars on the road, overwhelming our already congested streets, causing more backups, delays, and road rage. More autos bring many negatives; the pedestrian environment is degraded, it’s harder to cross the street, there is more pollution and noise and conflicts from cars turning into driveways across sidewalks. There will be less space on the roadway for bicycles and more car/bike conflicts. The cumulative effect of these conflicts will discourage walking and biking.
Our excessive parking requirements have far reaching environmental impacts as well. First, they encourage driving. In the age of global warming this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Vehicles account for 30% of our nation’s CO2 emissions. We cannot adequately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by driving hybrid cars. For one thing, as population grows, VMT (vehicle miles traveled) will continue to increase. As gas mileage efficiencies increase, the limiting effects of high gas prices will be mitigated, thus causing drivers to drive more. No, the only way to reduce the CO2 from vehicles is to drive less and the only way to drive less is to build in such a way as to facilitate transit and other alternative transportation modes for a greater portion of our travel needs.
If we want to be consistent with the values of environmental sustainability, preservation of open space, enhancing our pedestrian environment and providing a variety of housing types and values then we need to reduce our parking requirements.
[where:02446]
Monday, January 7, 2008
Logical Conclusion of Parking Regulations not Logical
I know what you are thinking, here we go again with the parking! But the truth of the matter is that the parking requirements that are incorporated into our zoning ordinance are just as influential as the building size and use requirements in determining what kind of development we will end up with. In addition, the method of applying the standards and reviewing each parcel and building proposal in isolation, treating it as if it were it's own universe yields a disjointed and dysfunctional public realm. But back to the subject at hand. The parking requirements.
Each requirement taken in isolation may seem reasonable, but the effects are profound and far reaching. For an area like Coolidge Corner we have to ask ourselves what kind of place are we trying to build? The standards we have set are more suitable for the suburbs. They are the norm and have been adopted throughout the land, and we can see the results. The building in isolation surrounded by a sea of parking. These regulations are based on a standard number of automobile trips that are "drawn" to a certain type of building, this is known as Trip Generation and is based on all kinds of science. Build an office out in the suburbs and a certain number of cars will come and go on a given day because the people working there have no other way to get there! It is fairly easy to predict then, based on the size of the building, how many auto trips will come and go. From there we can come up with a formula for a minimum number of parking spaces per a unit of building square footage, and voila a parking requirement.
By requiring developers to provide on-site parking for every new building, be it housing, office or commercial we are subsidizing and encouraging driving and increasing the costs to both build and ultimately occupy those homes and businesses. In an area rich in alternative transportation options this makes no sense. Those in need of affordable housing and small businesses looking for affordable rents could benefit from the infrastructure expenditure savings realized through a relaxation of excessive on-site parking requirements. In terms of the affordable housing household the savings are two fold. The unit is cheaper because they aren't buying an amenity they do not need (excess parking) and because they are living within close proximity of transit they need not spend such a large portion of their income on automobile costs.
In addition to the cost savings the benefits to the environment, both in terms of reduced pollution and energy savings and the livability of a humanly oriented public realm cannot be overstated. By reducing the pervasiveness of the automobile in our environment we remove a huge source of stress for the pedestrian. Citizens are coming to realize the joys of mingling with others in a relaxed public setting. This increased awareness has spread through the growing publicity surrounding the many successfully created public spaces in cities and towns around the globe. Brookline has the perfect setting for creating such a place and those who are raising their voices to demand such a place are speaking for future generations and the public in general.
This is not an either or proposition. There will still be people who will need to drive to Coolidge Corner. However, we need to plan for parking for the area as a whole and not force each parcel to provide on-site parking. This destroys the economics and walkability of our core commercial district. Lets see if we can't get a little more creative. We should do everything we can to make walking, taking the T and biking attractive fun and convenient. We should not subsidize and encourage driving. We should not destroy the street scape and pedestrian environment just to accommodate the automobile.
Until we come to grips with the ramifications of our unacquainted parking requirements. The reason we have heard of only one development proposal for the Centre Street parking lot, a nine story hotel, is because a hotel has a much lower on-site parking requirement than does commercial, office or residential uses. And still it must be completely out of scale (9 stories tall) in order to be economically viable. Do we really want to sacrifice the benefits to our community that other, more locally usable commercial establishments or affordable housing might bring, just to meet an outdated, inappropriate parking standard?
[where:Brookline, MA 02446]
Each requirement taken in isolation may seem reasonable, but the effects are profound and far reaching. For an area like Coolidge Corner we have to ask ourselves what kind of place are we trying to build? The standards we have set are more suitable for the suburbs. They are the norm and have been adopted throughout the land, and we can see the results. The building in isolation surrounded by a sea of parking. These regulations are based on a standard number of automobile trips that are "drawn" to a certain type of building, this is known as Trip Generation and is based on all kinds of science. Build an office out in the suburbs and a certain number of cars will come and go on a given day because the people working there have no other way to get there! It is fairly easy to predict then, based on the size of the building, how many auto trips will come and go. From there we can come up with a formula for a minimum number of parking spaces per a unit of building square footage, and voila a parking requirement.
By requiring developers to provide on-site parking for every new building, be it housing, office or commercial we are subsidizing and encouraging driving and increasing the costs to both build and ultimately occupy those homes and businesses. In an area rich in alternative transportation options this makes no sense. Those in need of affordable housing and small businesses looking for affordable rents could benefit from the infrastructure expenditure savings realized through a relaxation of excessive on-site parking requirements. In terms of the affordable housing household the savings are two fold. The unit is cheaper because they aren't buying an amenity they do not need (excess parking) and because they are living within close proximity of transit they need not spend such a large portion of their income on automobile costs.
In addition to the cost savings the benefits to the environment, both in terms of reduced pollution and energy savings and the livability of a humanly oriented public realm cannot be overstated. By reducing the pervasiveness of the automobile in our environment we remove a huge source of stress for the pedestrian. Citizens are coming to realize the joys of mingling with others in a relaxed public setting. This increased awareness has spread through the growing publicity surrounding the many successfully created public spaces in cities and towns around the globe. Brookline has the perfect setting for creating such a place and those who are raising their voices to demand such a place are speaking for future generations and the public in general.
This is not an either or proposition. There will still be people who will need to drive to Coolidge Corner. However, we need to plan for parking for the area as a whole and not force each parcel to provide on-site parking. This destroys the economics and walkability of our core commercial district. Lets see if we can't get a little more creative. We should do everything we can to make walking, taking the T and biking attractive fun and convenient. We should not subsidize and encourage driving. We should not destroy the street scape and pedestrian environment just to accommodate the automobile.
Until we come to grips with the ramifications of our unacquainted parking requirements. The reason we have heard of only one development proposal for the Centre Street parking lot, a nine story hotel, is because a hotel has a much lower on-site parking requirement than does commercial, office or residential uses. And still it must be completely out of scale (9 stories tall) in order to be economically viable. Do we really want to sacrifice the benefits to our community that other, more locally usable commercial establishments or affordable housing might bring, just to meet an outdated, inappropriate parking standard?
[where:Brookline, MA 02446]
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Pedestrians an Afterthought?
You've got to wonder what they were thinking. The design of the new Beacon Street must have looked pretty impressive on all those drawings. Despite the excessive intuitive lane weaving that the driver must somehow have the precognition to execute, the autos for the most part seem to have been accommodated. After all that's what the highway department thinks its job is.
But what about all the other life that goes on around and across and in the road? It is, after all those of us who cross Beacon on foot, take the trolley, walk or jog along the sidewalks, ride a bike, shop, talk to our friends, window shop, attend Arts Festivals, tend our front yards and sometimes just sit on our front stoops to watch the world go by all on or along side historic Beacon Street. Just how much thought was given to the way all of this was going to work out?
If the intersection at Harvard and Beacon is any indication, not much. Stand on the southeast corner of this intersection and watch as the streams of pedestrians weave and dodge there way around the two huge signal boxes placed directly in the middle of the obvious travel path, not to mention the many poles, etc. These impediments are so intrusive, we are forced to dodge each other dodging the boxes and poles! Yes, we can manage I guess, although I think people in well chairs or on walkers would have a hard time of it. But managing is not the point is it?
This crossing should have been designed and planned to be plenty big, wide, clear and with a good flat surface and if we were really lucky it could have been aesthetically appealing with some nice T signage thrown in. Doesn't anyone know how to plan for pedestrians? Didn't anyone think about the amount of people on foot that cross this street daily. My experience with the St.Paul Street T stop has not been much better. Here we have crowds of people with suitcases destined for the Holiday Inn getting off onto a strip of asphalt only to find that they must circle around on a narrow little circuit of patchwork pavement wrapped around a few poles, signal boxes and planting beds. Again, no real thought was given to accommodating numbers of people or making it easy, convenient or pleasant. My friend Susan Bartek tells me that the narrow passage way was actually much smaller and it was only through her quick action as she watched this error being committed and called it to the attention of the Town and T that some slight accommodation was made. Pretty incredible that this kind of ineptitude is still going on.
In this day and age of global warming we should be doing everything we can to make walking, biking and riding the T the preferred transportation alternatives. Part of this means making sure the effort is made to design and build functionality for all transportation modes, especially when masses amounts of time, energy and tax dollars are being expended.
This seems to be a case where better, professional expertise in the form of design review and oversight were needed. Whether or not this was a failure of attention or a simple lack of staff resources, it revels yet another instance where the complexities of the governance we are in need of has outstripped our ability to provide it. And I'm afraid this seems to be happening on just about all fronts at once. Ours is a complex, dense and in many ways urban community and we are not really managing change let alone planning for the future adequately.
[Where: 1319 Beacon St., Brookline, MA 02446]
But what about all the other life that goes on around and across and in the road? It is, after all those of us who cross Beacon on foot, take the trolley, walk or jog along the sidewalks, ride a bike, shop, talk to our friends, window shop, attend Arts Festivals, tend our front yards and sometimes just sit on our front stoops to watch the world go by all on or along side historic Beacon Street. Just how much thought was given to the way all of this was going to work out?
If the intersection at Harvard and Beacon is any indication, not much. Stand on the southeast corner of this intersection and watch as the streams of pedestrians weave and dodge there way around the two huge signal boxes placed directly in the middle of the obvious travel path, not to mention the many poles, etc. These impediments are so intrusive, we are forced to dodge each other dodging the boxes and poles! Yes, we can manage I guess, although I think people in well chairs or on walkers would have a hard time of it. But managing is not the point is it?
This crossing should have been designed and planned to be plenty big, wide, clear and with a good flat surface and if we were really lucky it could have been aesthetically appealing with some nice T signage thrown in. Doesn't anyone know how to plan for pedestrians? Didn't anyone think about the amount of people on foot that cross this street daily. My experience with the St.Paul Street T stop has not been much better. Here we have crowds of people with suitcases destined for the Holiday Inn getting off onto a strip of asphalt only to find that they must circle around on a narrow little circuit of patchwork pavement wrapped around a few poles, signal boxes and planting beds. Again, no real thought was given to accommodating numbers of people or making it easy, convenient or pleasant. My friend Susan Bartek tells me that the narrow passage way was actually much smaller and it was only through her quick action as she watched this error being committed and called it to the attention of the Town and T that some slight accommodation was made. Pretty incredible that this kind of ineptitude is still going on.
In this day and age of global warming we should be doing everything we can to make walking, biking and riding the T the preferred transportation alternatives. Part of this means making sure the effort is made to design and build functionality for all transportation modes, especially when masses amounts of time, energy and tax dollars are being expended.
This seems to be a case where better, professional expertise in the form of design review and oversight were needed. Whether or not this was a failure of attention or a simple lack of staff resources, it revels yet another instance where the complexities of the governance we are in need of has outstripped our ability to provide it. And I'm afraid this seems to be happening on just about all fronts at once. Ours is a complex, dense and in many ways urban community and we are not really managing change let alone planning for the future adequately.
[Where: 1319 Beacon St., Brookline, MA 02446]
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Rumors of the Death of the Book
This topic isn't exactly Brookline related per se, although I'm sure we have more than our fair share of heavy reader and authors per capita than just about anywhere. So here comes another gizmo we are supposed to want to carry around with us and use, the Kindle. It's supposed to be so much like reading a book, we can get lost in the experience, just like we do when we read.....The great minds at MIT worked for a decade devising E Ink, which is much more like ink on paper, rather than looking at a backlit screen. There will be a wireless all-pervasive "whispernet" cellphone network that we use to download our books from Amazon. We can climb a tree and download a book at the same time!
Do you detect a note a sarcasm? I am showing my age I guess. How many books do I need access to at once? To actually read? One of my big problems with the Kindle is its exclusive network and control of content. Can you get books anywhere else and read them on the Kindle? Or is this world domination a la Amazon? At least with an IPod it supports multiple file formats and you can source music files any number of ways.
Another big problem I have is browsing or serendipity. How many of you have wondered into a great book store or yard sale for that matter and stumbled upon a great book you never knew you were looking for? How will we find these if the physical objects don't exist? Amazon recommends X because you liked Y is just not going to get it.
I know, books are an environmental nightmare and this is the digital age after all. The Death of the Book is Inevitable!! This is what "they" say anyway. I wonder. We always get this idea that its a zero sum proposition, when in fact, it might just be that we have another way to read, with both formats remaining viable for different purposes.
After listening to a very interesting discussion on WBUR with Steven Levy (author of this week's Newsweek article The Future of Reading) and Sven Birkerts (author of The Gutenberg Elegies) a friend gave me a copy of the Newsweek article. In it Levy says "Talk to people who have thought about the future of books and there's a phrase you hear again and again. Readers will read in public. Writers will write in public...the notion of the author as authoritarian figure gives way to a Web 2.0 wisdom-of-the-crowds process."
If you ask me this is completely missing the boat. Being an author isn't just about the ideas. Sure, in the research phase of project, get all the input you can. The more ideas the better. But its the process of making connections, winnowing, the content. Then its the craft. Do you think the group process would have made Shakespeare better? Any writer worth their salt knows its sweating bullets, editing, editing , editing that makes something good.
When we read something it is that we want to experience another persons vision, or get some idea of how they think or share their view of the world? How could this happen if everything written was a group effort? There would be no cohesion. Maybe I'm missing something in what they are predicting.
Digitizing books has obvious research benefits (searchable databases, universal access etc.) and I'm all for that. But does that mean technology will necessarily improve upon the book? Maybe not, but perhaps we won't have a choice. I don't know about you, but it sure seems like the future sure is coming faster than ever!
[Where: 02446]
Do you detect a note a sarcasm? I am showing my age I guess. How many books do I need access to at once? To actually read? One of my big problems with the Kindle is its exclusive network and control of content. Can you get books anywhere else and read them on the Kindle? Or is this world domination a la Amazon? At least with an IPod it supports multiple file formats and you can source music files any number of ways.
Another big problem I have is browsing or serendipity. How many of you have wondered into a great book store or yard sale for that matter and stumbled upon a great book you never knew you were looking for? How will we find these if the physical objects don't exist? Amazon recommends X because you liked Y is just not going to get it.
I know, books are an environmental nightmare and this is the digital age after all. The Death of the Book is Inevitable!! This is what "they" say anyway. I wonder. We always get this idea that its a zero sum proposition, when in fact, it might just be that we have another way to read, with both formats remaining viable for different purposes.
After listening to a very interesting discussion on WBUR with Steven Levy (author of this week's Newsweek article The Future of Reading) and Sven Birkerts (author of The Gutenberg Elegies) a friend gave me a copy of the Newsweek article. In it Levy says "Talk to people who have thought about the future of books and there's a phrase you hear again and again. Readers will read in public. Writers will write in public...the notion of the author as authoritarian figure gives way to a Web 2.0 wisdom-of-the-crowds process."
If you ask me this is completely missing the boat. Being an author isn't just about the ideas. Sure, in the research phase of project, get all the input you can. The more ideas the better. But its the process of making connections, winnowing, the content. Then its the craft. Do you think the group process would have made Shakespeare better? Any writer worth their salt knows its sweating bullets, editing, editing , editing that makes something good.
When we read something it is that we want to experience another persons vision, or get some idea of how they think or share their view of the world? How could this happen if everything written was a group effort? There would be no cohesion. Maybe I'm missing something in what they are predicting.
Digitizing books has obvious research benefits (searchable databases, universal access etc.) and I'm all for that. But does that mean technology will necessarily improve upon the book? Maybe not, but perhaps we won't have a choice. I don't know about you, but it sure seems like the future sure is coming faster than ever!
[Where: 02446]
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Beacon Street Finishing Touches
If you are a construction junkie or a little kid who likes watching big trucks moving dirt and pouring pavement, you've had quite a year. The Beacon Street project finally hit Coolidge Corner full force for the past few months, and each time I've ventured to the corner on foot I've stood in amazement at the scale and monumentally of the action going on. It's also been a challenge wandering into the street or onto the bouncing plywood planks as we attempt to frequent our usual places of business. These maneuvers seemed nearly impossible for many elderly and mothers with strollers, but they still tried, as the rest of us tried to help them! I also stood, quite saddened and stunned, when I went to go to Rodney's bookstore and found it gone. It was a treasure trove to me.
I admit, I haven't been completely tuned into the whole project, mostly trying to remember not to come home on Beacon in my car the few times a week I'm out in it. I can't say I really know why it was that this massive undertaking was considered necessary. Granted one of the big improvements on the functional side, in my opinion, is we will no longer have the angle parked cars backing up into the travel lanes. I was once stopped in a line of cars backed up from the Harvard/Beacon light and someone in a parked car started to back-up. Now, this seems normal, they are just getting ready to move when the traffic clears, but no. I soon realized that this person was either blind or not looking and was continuing to back-up into my car and I had no where to move to, my only resort was my horn. It took a good five long blasts until the apparently blind and nearly deaf person finally stopped within an inch of my car.
The bike lane is a good idea, although it would have been much better to have done it without gaps. But all those traffic lights seem like a few too many. I'm all for safety at intersections and if it helps the pedestrians, great, but I remain skeptical on that score. We should be at the point in our thinking that we accommodate all users of a roadway, no longer seeing it as the exclusive domain of maximum velocity moving automobiles, but rather a part of the fabric of a living breathing community. The name for this new (or actually old) way of looking at streets is called "complete streets". The pedestrian/auto conflicts at Beacon/Harvard have really been escalating in the last few years, as the cars get stuck in the middle of Beacon or don't want to wait for pedestrians as they try to turn right. On this score, I'm not sure the new project will be much help. As I crossed Beacon Street from the Southeast corner, I noticed a strange offset to the route we were guided on which sent us directly into a large (5 ft tall) switch box as we crossed the T stop. I hope this was just a construction fluke. Otherwise this is a case of not considering the pedestrian.
Coinciding with the completion of the Beacon Street project, the new commercial building next to the post office is nearing completion. The one good thing about this new building is all the glass. It will at least not be a harsh, solid wall. Sadly though, it will be a Staples. Generic, utilitarian office supplies, which are readily available at two other nearby locations does not stir the soul.
But what has really grabbed my attention now is the "jewelery" of the project. It's like after your house rehab gets done and now you are putting the furniture, the rug and pictures into the room. It becomes livable again. One day we see a mountain of dirt with a squadron of interesting looking mid-sized trees and the next day they are planted in a row between the T tracks and the roadway to the east of Pleasant Street. Nice, I hope they live. At least we have gotten some rain. So many of the new trees I saw planted this summer in and around Washington Square looked as if they will not make it. But as a whole, the plantings look nice and I am hopeful that the overall effect will be leafy, green and softening as they grow.
How about those snazzy new light posts. They have a nicely detailed curving arm in a glossy black paint, with an elegantly egg shaped glass. They are lovely, but they get lost in the forest of poles! Are we really going to have the jumble of sizes and styles that we've got going, or are they (please!) going to take down a few of the old ones. As an example of what I'm talking about, check out that little traffic island at Beacon and Pleasant Street. There are the thick short poles with the multitudinous traffic signals on them. These we are stuck with, but they add a lot of visual clutter just by themselves. Then there are the new street lights, great, wish we could see them. Then there are the old street lights, the pole is a composite stone and the light fixture is your standard issue interstate highway lamp. Then, (yes there's more!!!) there are the sixties era square black shades with white globe lamps meant to look smart and dress up the traffic island (which was always trying to convince us it was meant to be a public space as evident from the presence of a bench). There are more of these black square retro lights scattered about in Coolidge Corner. My guess is they came in with the Center Place development, which with its mirrored facade is looking pretty dated these days too.
The design of the new light posts is nice, but if there is no consistency of use, their effect will be one of creating chaos rather than making a design statement. The look of the street "jewelery" such as the plantings, signage, lighting, benches, building facades, etc. will set the tone for all of Coolidge Corner and will have significant impacts on how welcoming and pleasing it is. Consistent design standards are needed and would be welcome to both developers and regulators alike. I wonder if we will get our historic cast aluminum street signs back? Are they really still thinking of posting both signs, the historic and a new street sign on the same post? This would be disastrous and silly. These details could be the most important part of this massive project, I hope they pay attention and reduce the chaos.
I admit, I haven't been completely tuned into the whole project, mostly trying to remember not to come home on Beacon in my car the few times a week I'm out in it. I can't say I really know why it was that this massive undertaking was considered necessary. Granted one of the big improvements on the functional side, in my opinion, is we will no longer have the angle parked cars backing up into the travel lanes. I was once stopped in a line of cars backed up from the Harvard/Beacon light and someone in a parked car started to back-up. Now, this seems normal, they are just getting ready to move when the traffic clears, but no. I soon realized that this person was either blind or not looking and was continuing to back-up into my car and I had no where to move to, my only resort was my horn. It took a good five long blasts until the apparently blind and nearly deaf person finally stopped within an inch of my car.
The bike lane is a good idea, although it would have been much better to have done it without gaps. But all those traffic lights seem like a few too many. I'm all for safety at intersections and if it helps the pedestrians, great, but I remain skeptical on that score. We should be at the point in our thinking that we accommodate all users of a roadway, no longer seeing it as the exclusive domain of maximum velocity moving automobiles, but rather a part of the fabric of a living breathing community. The name for this new (or actually old) way of looking at streets is called "complete streets". The pedestrian/auto conflicts at Beacon/Harvard have really been escalating in the last few years, as the cars get stuck in the middle of Beacon or don't want to wait for pedestrians as they try to turn right. On this score, I'm not sure the new project will be much help. As I crossed Beacon Street from the Southeast corner, I noticed a strange offset to the route we were guided on which sent us directly into a large (5 ft tall) switch box as we crossed the T stop. I hope this was just a construction fluke. Otherwise this is a case of not considering the pedestrian.
Coinciding with the completion of the Beacon Street project, the new commercial building next to the post office is nearing completion. The one good thing about this new building is all the glass. It will at least not be a harsh, solid wall. Sadly though, it will be a Staples. Generic, utilitarian office supplies, which are readily available at two other nearby locations does not stir the soul.
But what has really grabbed my attention now is the "jewelery" of the project. It's like after your house rehab gets done and now you are putting the furniture, the rug and pictures into the room. It becomes livable again. One day we see a mountain of dirt with a squadron of interesting looking mid-sized trees and the next day they are planted in a row between the T tracks and the roadway to the east of Pleasant Street. Nice, I hope they live. At least we have gotten some rain. So many of the new trees I saw planted this summer in and around Washington Square looked as if they will not make it. But as a whole, the plantings look nice and I am hopeful that the overall effect will be leafy, green and softening as they grow.
How about those snazzy new light posts. They have a nicely detailed curving arm in a glossy black paint, with an elegantly egg shaped glass. They are lovely, but they get lost in the forest of poles! Are we really going to have the jumble of sizes and styles that we've got going, or are they (please!) going to take down a few of the old ones. As an example of what I'm talking about, check out that little traffic island at Beacon and Pleasant Street. There are the thick short poles with the multitudinous traffic signals on them. These we are stuck with, but they add a lot of visual clutter just by themselves. Then there are the new street lights, great, wish we could see them. Then there are the old street lights, the pole is a composite stone and the light fixture is your standard issue interstate highway lamp. Then, (yes there's more!!!) there are the sixties era square black shades with white globe lamps meant to look smart and dress up the traffic island (which was always trying to convince us it was meant to be a public space as evident from the presence of a bench). There are more of these black square retro lights scattered about in Coolidge Corner. My guess is they came in with the Center Place development, which with its mirrored facade is looking pretty dated these days too.
The design of the new light posts is nice, but if there is no consistency of use, their effect will be one of creating chaos rather than making a design statement. The look of the street "jewelery" such as the plantings, signage, lighting, benches, building facades, etc. will set the tone for all of Coolidge Corner and will have significant impacts on how welcoming and pleasing it is. Consistent design standards are needed and would be welcome to both developers and regulators alike. I wonder if we will get our historic cast aluminum street signs back? Are they really still thinking of posting both signs, the historic and a new street sign on the same post? This would be disastrous and silly. These details could be the most important part of this massive project, I hope they pay attention and reduce the chaos.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
An Information Rich Environment: What will it Say?
We will soon be living in an age when we will carry devices or (horrors!) wear implants, that will read information from objects in our environment. I for one am very concerned about just what the nature of this information will be. Like all of our new technologies, these new developments hold both great promise and potential peril.
As someone who has studied and written about natural systems, the built environment, urban history and landscape design, I have often dreamed of the day when this type of information was readily accessible to people in their environment. Think of it. As you passed over a river on a bridge you could access a video showing the formation of the river valley through geologic time, or you could see the water shed depicted on a three dimensional topography map. Wouldn't this help us appreciate the fact that what someone puts on the ground 100 miles up stream eventually gets carried down the river and out to sea? Or what if we could call up a database of indigenous plants and animals from any geographic location, to help us identify the local wildflowers or sort out which were the invasive species? I have always felt that a greater awareness of a locales membership in a larger bio-region would expand our understanding of ecologic interdependence and give us a broader interpretation of the idea of home.
In terms of the built environment we can learn fascinating details about the development of a region or community, from historic industries to building types and social customs to school cultures. The opportunities for real knowledge are endless, and it is possible that our experience of our environment can be enriched and enhanced. Real-time data could offer us insight into our energy consumption, the patterns of movement within our city, or the efficiency of our recycling efforts, for instance. The data rich possibilities are only now being conceived. Of course, it is also possible that all of this information overload will yield only a mediated experience and our devices and individual information consumption will serve only to separate us from any real interaction with our surroundings. We will have to know how to find the proper balance and to share and interact in a real and meaningful way. It seems likely that small-scale economies, personalized service, public festivals and spaces, etc. will become even more cherished rather than less so.
But, as we all know, the world of commerce sees the potential in these technologies too. There have already been experiments where targeted ads have been sent to individuals' cell phones as they pass certain stores. Does this seem intrusive? Yes, I believe most of us would say yes. There will be those few who say they welcome the information, but more advertising is not something most will be asking for. The discouraging part is what the most popular choices are. Are we condemned to suffer the tyranny of the masses? As the current media consolidation phenomena continues, we are told time and again that we are getting what we ask for. But the truth is we aren't given a choice. This argument is getting old and tired. It is being used to justify everything from McDonalds to McMansions and it just rings hollow. If the choices are elevated we will make better choices.
If we are given a menu of information choices, let's hope we choose those types of information that expand our understanding of our place in the world, the natural environment and history, and not simply distract us with more consumerism and isolating entertainment.
As someone who has studied and written about natural systems, the built environment, urban history and landscape design, I have often dreamed of the day when this type of information was readily accessible to people in their environment. Think of it. As you passed over a river on a bridge you could access a video showing the formation of the river valley through geologic time, or you could see the water shed depicted on a three dimensional topography map. Wouldn't this help us appreciate the fact that what someone puts on the ground 100 miles up stream eventually gets carried down the river and out to sea? Or what if we could call up a database of indigenous plants and animals from any geographic location, to help us identify the local wildflowers or sort out which were the invasive species? I have always felt that a greater awareness of a locales membership in a larger bio-region would expand our understanding of ecologic interdependence and give us a broader interpretation of the idea of home.
In terms of the built environment we can learn fascinating details about the development of a region or community, from historic industries to building types and social customs to school cultures. The opportunities for real knowledge are endless, and it is possible that our experience of our environment can be enriched and enhanced. Real-time data could offer us insight into our energy consumption, the patterns of movement within our city, or the efficiency of our recycling efforts, for instance. The data rich possibilities are only now being conceived. Of course, it is also possible that all of this information overload will yield only a mediated experience and our devices and individual information consumption will serve only to separate us from any real interaction with our surroundings. We will have to know how to find the proper balance and to share and interact in a real and meaningful way. It seems likely that small-scale economies, personalized service, public festivals and spaces, etc. will become even more cherished rather than less so.
But, as we all know, the world of commerce sees the potential in these technologies too. There have already been experiments where targeted ads have been sent to individuals' cell phones as they pass certain stores. Does this seem intrusive? Yes, I believe most of us would say yes. There will be those few who say they welcome the information, but more advertising is not something most will be asking for. The discouraging part is what the most popular choices are. Are we condemned to suffer the tyranny of the masses? As the current media consolidation phenomena continues, we are told time and again that we are getting what we ask for. But the truth is we aren't given a choice. This argument is getting old and tired. It is being used to justify everything from McDonalds to McMansions and it just rings hollow. If the choices are elevated we will make better choices.
If we are given a menu of information choices, let's hope we choose those types of information that expand our understanding of our place in the world, the natural environment and history, and not simply distract us with more consumerism and isolating entertainment.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Zoning - A Social Contract
Once again there will be some zoning changes proposed for Fall Town Meeting. In general, I agree with the direction these changes are going, they are aimed at protecting existing neighborhoods around Coolidge Corner from the very real threats of loss of homes through demolition and new building that is excessively dense in relation to their surroundings. These twin goals aimed at protecting the Coolidge Corner neighborhoods arose from the lengthy and inclusive planning processes that gave us both the Brookline Comprehensive Plan and the Action Plan for Coolidge Corner. However, on the way to implementation, (drafting the zoning changes), these policy initiatives' intent have been subverted and subsumed by other special interests.
As a result of vocal opposition from a few homeowners and real estate and development interests, the Zoning By-Law Committee has failed to fulfil it's public mandate and instead have proposed modest changes which fall significantly short of stated policy goals. Without getting into the technical specifics of the proposals, I would like to comment generally on some of the issues raised by those who oppose more substantive changes and to point out some of the real costs and missed opportunities suffered by the people of Brookline and those living in the affected neighborhoods of adopting this approach.
Objection to implementation of more substantial changes seem to focus on the loss of the opportunity for individual property owners to sell their property for prices far in excess of the current home's value, based on the extra value attached to the property to be gained from building to the maximum development potential. They do not tell you that this is what they are talking about. Instead, they will say that the proposed zoning change would "reduce the value of their property". This is not true. The value of their existing property (for taxation or market value estimates) is based on what is currently built. So what they are really fighting for is their right to "cash in" by selling their property for tear down and redevelopment (at a much higher density). They consider this some kind of basic right. But what about the resulting impacts on their neighbors, and the town in general. What about the very real possibility that their actions will actually lower the property values of the remaining homes in their neighborhood. Think about it. A few individuals are fighting to protect their ability to sell to a developer who will choose tear-down and denser redevelop, but because of the widespread impacts this choice has it is not an individuals choice, and here is where we need to understand the public and social contract function of a zoning ordinance.
In every arena of human interaction, we have developed laws and rules that identify what most reasonable people think are appropriate limits and compromises on the continuum between individual freedom and public protection/benefits. Zoning came about to ensure certain basic protections from the harmful impacts of noxious land uses. Since that time zoning has evolved to ensure stability and uniformity by identifying very specific uses and dimensional requirements for each property within a given zone. Many feel the protections don't go far enough because they do not deal with many features of buildings and streetscapes that contribute to the character of a particular neighborhood. Just meeting the zoning requirements does not insure a new building will fit harmoniously into an established neighborhood setting. This realization has led to the creation of new types of zoning ordinances such as "form-based" zoning, which requires new buildings to more closely match the form of surrounding buildings.
In many cases, communities find themselves in the unfortunate position of having large areas that are "over-zoned" , thereby allowing new buildings that are much bigger in scale than existing ones, creating the very real threat of new building that is disruptive, intrusive and detrimental to that illusive yet tangible neighborhood feel many of us cherish here in Brookline. This is the case in many Brookline neighborhoods and dealing with this issue was at the heart of the policy objectives identified in our Comprehensive Plan and the C.C.D.P.C. Action Plan.
As with any law, regulation or rule, there are pros and cons, trade-offs and gray areas. In the case of reducing the allowable maximum building square footage to better match existing homes, one of these gray areas is that of additions. My calculations show that the possibility for current homeowners to add (up to an additional 1,000 sq. ft.) onto their existing homes could easily be accommodated while still meeting the overall objective of retaining appropriate scale and neighborhood character.
I believe the majority of citizens in Brookline (especially those living in those neighborhoods near Coolidge Corner where the greatest development pressure exists) would favor a zoning ordinance that retained existing building scales and neighborhood characteristics, if it were written clearly and carefully, was fairly applied and included enough "wiggle room" to accommodate modest additions and change. We have witnessed some really inappropriate new building (1 Somerset comes to mind) and many individuals who have never thought twice about the import of zoning are left scratching their heads. Yet, we don't seem to be able to have an informed and intelligent discussion about these issues. In this way, the social contract is invalid from the outset because is was not developed as a reflection of the public consensus.
As a result of vocal opposition from a few homeowners and real estate and development interests, the Zoning By-Law Committee has failed to fulfil it's public mandate and instead have proposed modest changes which fall significantly short of stated policy goals. Without getting into the technical specifics of the proposals, I would like to comment generally on some of the issues raised by those who oppose more substantive changes and to point out some of the real costs and missed opportunities suffered by the people of Brookline and those living in the affected neighborhoods of adopting this approach.
Objection to implementation of more substantial changes seem to focus on the loss of the opportunity for individual property owners to sell their property for prices far in excess of the current home's value, based on the extra value attached to the property to be gained from building to the maximum development potential. They do not tell you that this is what they are talking about. Instead, they will say that the proposed zoning change would "reduce the value of their property". This is not true. The value of their existing property (for taxation or market value estimates) is based on what is currently built. So what they are really fighting for is their right to "cash in" by selling their property for tear down and redevelopment (at a much higher density). They consider this some kind of basic right. But what about the resulting impacts on their neighbors, and the town in general. What about the very real possibility that their actions will actually lower the property values of the remaining homes in their neighborhood. Think about it. A few individuals are fighting to protect their ability to sell to a developer who will choose tear-down and denser redevelop, but because of the widespread impacts this choice has it is not an individuals choice, and here is where we need to understand the public and social contract function of a zoning ordinance.
In every arena of human interaction, we have developed laws and rules that identify what most reasonable people think are appropriate limits and compromises on the continuum between individual freedom and public protection/benefits. Zoning came about to ensure certain basic protections from the harmful impacts of noxious land uses. Since that time zoning has evolved to ensure stability and uniformity by identifying very specific uses and dimensional requirements for each property within a given zone. Many feel the protections don't go far enough because they do not deal with many features of buildings and streetscapes that contribute to the character of a particular neighborhood. Just meeting the zoning requirements does not insure a new building will fit harmoniously into an established neighborhood setting. This realization has led to the creation of new types of zoning ordinances such as "form-based" zoning, which requires new buildings to more closely match the form of surrounding buildings.
In many cases, communities find themselves in the unfortunate position of having large areas that are "over-zoned" , thereby allowing new buildings that are much bigger in scale than existing ones, creating the very real threat of new building that is disruptive, intrusive and detrimental to that illusive yet tangible neighborhood feel many of us cherish here in Brookline. This is the case in many Brookline neighborhoods and dealing with this issue was at the heart of the policy objectives identified in our Comprehensive Plan and the C.C.D.P.C. Action Plan.
As with any law, regulation or rule, there are pros and cons, trade-offs and gray areas. In the case of reducing the allowable maximum building square footage to better match existing homes, one of these gray areas is that of additions. My calculations show that the possibility for current homeowners to add (up to an additional 1,000 sq. ft.) onto their existing homes could easily be accommodated while still meeting the overall objective of retaining appropriate scale and neighborhood character.
I believe the majority of citizens in Brookline (especially those living in those neighborhoods near Coolidge Corner where the greatest development pressure exists) would favor a zoning ordinance that retained existing building scales and neighborhood characteristics, if it were written clearly and carefully, was fairly applied and included enough "wiggle room" to accommodate modest additions and change. We have witnessed some really inappropriate new building (1 Somerset comes to mind) and many individuals who have never thought twice about the import of zoning are left scratching their heads. Yet, we don't seem to be able to have an informed and intelligent discussion about these issues. In this way, the social contract is invalid from the outset because is was not developed as a reflection of the public consensus.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
They tore the blue house down
I had seen the letter from the zoning board of appeals. Someone wanted to build something on Green Street. I made a note of the address and went to see what structure we were talking about. It was a large blue Victorian house, next to the Temple. I knew it as an alternative high school, with its small sign that said "Beacon High School" with funky cars parked out front and somewhat outrageously dressed students. I remember thinking that the house, while maybe being a bit run down, was a handsome structure with great potential. I assumed the new construction would be a rehab and reuse of the existing structure because it was, after all, a nice old house. Wrong.
One day last week the green construction fence went up around the house. The next day, a front end loader was ripping off huge chunks of the back of the building. I stood on the sidewalk and my jaw dropped. I still held out hope that the ripping would stop and that the front part of the blue house would be spared. The next day I walked by and the front end loader was on top of a tall pile of debris, dust was billowing in large clouds. The house was no more. I was stunned and saddened and wondered how this could have happened.
What will go up on the site of the Big Blue Victorian? Will it be a bland, stark box, built to the edge of the lot, harsh with no trees or greenery? A structure with no beauty or ornament, no front porches or attractive roof lines? One that maximizes the square footage and therefore profit potential of the lot now made available? I am not hopeful.
I should have gone to that meeting. But for me, night meetings are virtually impossible. So where does that leave the concerned citizen? How are we to keep track of these proposed changes to our neighborhood? The letter announcing the zoning board meeting did not mention demolition. I had naively had faith that the zoning board would press for preservation and adaptive, sensitive re-use. In other words the right thing, being sensitive to the neighboring homes. Did the people living across the street and next door go to the meeting? Did they know that one day they would wake up and the blue Victorian they had gazed out their windows at for years would be reduced to a pile of rubble.
How quickly and easily the destruction happened. The machinery made a home seem like a pile of tooth picks. As I stood on the sidewalk, stunned, looking at pile of wood boards that were once a home, dreading what was to take their place, I wondered if anyone else cared. I could not help but lament my lack of attention to that letter about the meeting I couldn't attend. And I could not help but think there must be a better way to inform citizens about these important decisions and to allow us a chance for input in a way that is more straight forward and convenient than the tedious and arcane zoning board meeting.
They tore the Big Blue Victorian down. [where: 74 Green St, Brookline, MA 02446]
One day last week the green construction fence went up around the house. The next day, a front end loader was ripping off huge chunks of the back of the building. I stood on the sidewalk and my jaw dropped. I still held out hope that the ripping would stop and that the front part of the blue house would be spared. The next day I walked by and the front end loader was on top of a tall pile of debris, dust was billowing in large clouds. The house was no more. I was stunned and saddened and wondered how this could have happened.
What will go up on the site of the Big Blue Victorian? Will it be a bland, stark box, built to the edge of the lot, harsh with no trees or greenery? A structure with no beauty or ornament, no front porches or attractive roof lines? One that maximizes the square footage and therefore profit potential of the lot now made available? I am not hopeful.
I should have gone to that meeting. But for me, night meetings are virtually impossible. So where does that leave the concerned citizen? How are we to keep track of these proposed changes to our neighborhood? The letter announcing the zoning board meeting did not mention demolition. I had naively had faith that the zoning board would press for preservation and adaptive, sensitive re-use. In other words the right thing, being sensitive to the neighboring homes. Did the people living across the street and next door go to the meeting? Did they know that one day they would wake up and the blue Victorian they had gazed out their windows at for years would be reduced to a pile of rubble.
How quickly and easily the destruction happened. The machinery made a home seem like a pile of tooth picks. As I stood on the sidewalk, stunned, looking at pile of wood boards that were once a home, dreading what was to take their place, I wondered if anyone else cared. I could not help but lament my lack of attention to that letter about the meeting I couldn't attend. And I could not help but think there must be a better way to inform citizens about these important decisions and to allow us a chance for input in a way that is more straight forward and convenient than the tedious and arcane zoning board meeting.
They tore the Big Blue Victorian down. [where: 74 Green St, Brookline, MA 02446]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)