Community by Design: The Olmsted Firm and the Development of Brookline, MA

Cover Photo by Jack E. Boucher.  Library of Congress

I suspect there will be a great deal of interest in this new book, Community by Design: The Olmsted Firm and The Development of Brookline, Massachusetts, by Keith Morgan, Elizabeth Hope Cushing and Roger Reed.  Published by the Library of American Landscape History, University of Massachusetts Press.  Anyone interested in understanding why Brookline looks the way it does will find plenty of fodder here.  Olmsted enthusiasts will get an in-depth glimpse into the workings of the firm with plenty of real world examples of their design philosophy; first delineated in plan form and then realized in our neighborhoods.  Chock full of details (with hundreds of reproduced photos and plans) and meticulously researched, the book exposes the multiple webs of influence; wealth, social hierarchy, design genius and high-minded ideals that came together to guide the development of Brookline at a time when booming population and streetcars brought rapid change.  The authors trace the relationships among the leading trend-setters in architecture, municipal governance, landscape design, engineering and horticulture as they converge in Brookline at the turn of the 19th century, a time when the professions of landscape architecture and urban planning were being born by these very individuals.   The book sets these events into a broader context, describing the forces that drew these taste-makers to Brookline in the first place and the process by which they came to see their home as a template for an ideal residential setting.  Henry Hobson Richardson, Charles Sprague Sargent, Charles Eliot, Arthur Shurcliff, Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., John Charles Olmsted, Guy Lowell, J. Randolph Coolidge and Robert Swain Peabody are some of the design and horticulture luminaries that circulated within the elder Olmsted's sphere.

Charles Eliot 1882 Courtesy family of Carola Eliot Goriansky

Imagine a world before graduate schools churned out thousands of architects and city planners a year.  This book gives us an inside look at the birth of numerous allied professions. The first American school of architecture was established at MIT in 1867.  Locating a practice, as H.H. Richardson did in 1874 in nearby Brookline, allowed for a symbiotic relationship between mentor and neophyte, his practice blurred home and office, school and work life, much like the Paris atelier he came from.  In late 19th century America there were no professional schools for landscape architects until 1900 when F.L.Olmsted Jr. and Arthur Shurcliff oversaw the creation of a program in landscape architecture at Harvard University.  Prior to that, it was through internship at the Olmsted firm that one gained the necessary skills to practice.  Charles Eliot, was the very first such intern, who later went on to found the Trustees of Reservations, due to his deep understanding and passion for planning on a regional scale.

In these early days, practitioners were free to apply their talents to best advantage, and in some cases, such as when F.L. Olmsted Jr. was asked to assist with the subdivision of "Holm Lea", the Sargent Estate, they conditioned their professional involvement upon being given control over all aspects of a development.  They understood that the outcome would be enhanced if all aspects of site design, architecture, landscaping, road design, etc. were executed from a unified perspective.  In the case of the Sargent Estate, the heirs were reluctant to give such control to the younger Olmsted.  Due in large part to a history of wealth and insular governance, as well as the presence of these civic-minded design professionals, Brookline established one of the first Planning Commissions in Massachusetts, in 1914, with F.L. Olmsted Jr. serving as it's first chair .  We follow the story of the birth of city planning as F.L. Olmsted Jr. , in 1910 founded the first national organization of city planners, the National Conference on City Planning. Brookline was one of the first municipalities to adopt a zoning by-law, doing so in 1922, just two years after state enabling legislation was passed in 1920. 

Plan for Fisher Hill, 1886 FL & JC Olmsted Copy of Lithograph Courtesy Brookline Public Library

Unlike the hyper-specialization in today's professional world, F.L.Olmsted saw the big picture and could envision change well into the future.  Olmsted's skills and practice reached far beyond the limited role landscape architects are forced to inhabit today.  He did not approach his commissions from a purely "aesthetic" point of view, instead he operated more as a problem solver, applying a few key principles consistently.  His understanding of the benefits of working with nature, such as respecting and working with existing topography, and utilizing the natural flows of water are again in vogue today as influential landscape designers champion the use of native plants, minimal soil disruption and existing water supplies instead of the heavy-handed Army Corps of Engineers approach prevalent in the intervening years.  We see in the design for "Brookline Hill", later renamed Fisher Hill, how Olmsted layed out curving roadways to take advantage of views and create a meandering feel.  He also, to achieve his client's goal, created large lots for spacious homes, complete with deed restrictions.

Olmsted had a profound insight into what today we call "environmental psychology"  he knew how people responded to certain settings and he knew how to create those settings and experiences.  He could envisage the experience of calm pleasure and peacefulness that ensues from traversing a curvy and tree-lined roadway.  All of his plans, including Central Park, Beacon St. and the Emerald Necklace flowed from first designing appropriate transportation and linkages.  In fact, we would perhaps not be experiencing the levels of traffic congestion present today, had the planning professions absorbed the lessons to be learned from the separation of travel mode which where an innovation inherent in all Olmsted plans.

Sketch of Proposed Brookside Roads in Upper Brookline 1894 Courtesy National Park Service, F.L. Olmsted N.H.S.

Development pressures were great and reading this book we learn how the families of wealth and influence who lived in South Brookline hired the Olmsted firm to help them ward off plans for intensive development.  Rather than a narrowly focused response, the firm took a more comprehensive tact, proposing a network of parkways as an antecedent to future growth.  The plan included a partway linking Jamaica Pond with the Brookline Reservoir.

Community by Design will inform scholarship on a great many subjects, and as a resident of Brookline, I am grateful for the depth of insight to be gained from reading about such a pivotal time in our history and the people who helped shape our landscape.  The Olmsted firm worked on hundreds of projects for the town and the town's land owners, with their keen insight creating much of landscape we enjoy today.

Bicycles: Can we acheive harmony and respect?

The bicycle is a marvel.  A human-powered machine of utmost simplicity. It is often referred to as the most efficient form of transportation around.  Burns calories, not fuel.  The bike is being rediscovered and celebrated around the world, as a cheap form of transportation suitable for young and old alike.

Enabling and supporting bicycling furthers many important public objectives.  More bicycles means fewer cars on the road.  Fewer cars means less congestion, less air pollution,  fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less parking demand.   These benefits accrue to everyone, not just the bicyclists.  More bicyclists means more healthy physical activity, reinforcing Brookline Health Departments' Brookline on the Move initiative.  A bike can be an essential means of transportation for someone who cannot afford or chooses not own a car.   So, in making it safer to ride a bike by providing designated bike lanes and more convenient bike parking, we are supporting many worthy goals.

Improving bike safety will encourage more people to ride and therefore, more benefits will stack up.  Mobility and access are improved for everyone, including those who do not drive.  The air will be cleaner and safer to breath.  People will get healthy exercise.  Being on a bike lets us encounter our surroundings and the world in a more immediate and direct way, maybe even leading to more community involvement.  With the new Hubway bikeshare system, visitors, employees and residents will have easy access to a convenient, healthy way to get around.  Tourists will be able to enjoy more of what Brookline has to offer.  

So, why is there so much animosity and derision hurled at bicyclists?  Why is there so much vocal opposition and obstruction when it comes to improving conditions for biking in Brookline?  We hear over and over how bad bicyclists are at following the rules and that they don't exercise prudent riding styles.  No doubt there are few bad apples out there, for whom some scorn is justified.  But this does not explain the militant anti-bike fervor we see.  After all, there are plenty of motorists and pedestrians who behave badly too, but we never hear a collective call of hostility and degradation for motorists or pedestrians.  The mean spirited disregard for bicyclists' safety is shocking and inappropriate.  And yet, it seems to be accepted and tolerated.  There is something bigger going on here.

For many years (since the 1950's) planning, infrastructure and street design have all catered exclusively to the automobile.  Much of the American landscape has been transformed into a land of roads, parking lots and private garages, dominating both visual and spatial dimensions completely.  Walking or riding a bike became precarious, dangerous and viewed with suspicion, perhaps a sign of social deviance or poverty.  How inhumane those sub-conscious thoughts are, and yet in most places in the US this reality is all there is and going car-less is virtually impossible.  Fortunately, Brookline was settled well before this time.  We are blessed with compact walkable and bikable landscapes.  We can get around to many of our destinations without driving a car.  Trust me, we are envied for this aspect of our lifestyle.   Yes, we have narrow streets.  Yes, Massachusetts breeds a particularly forceful street behavior, pitting ourselves against those impeding our progress.   All of these forces have carried over into the latest form of this conflict, Article 23.

Article 23, which will come before Brookline Town Meeting this spring, began life as a Home Rule Petition that sought to strip our Transportation Board of its authority to approve and implement a certain type of bike lane, called a contra-flow lane.  This type of bike lane is suitable in rare and particular conditions where a short connector is needed to allow bikes to travel a safe and logical route on a street where cars have been limited to one-way travel.  Opposition to the Home rule petition led to a re-working of Article 23.

So now, Article 23 has been amended to be a resolution calling for our T Board to draft criteria, with the explicit input of certain town boards and commissions, which will define when contraflow bike lanes may be appropriate and to describe what factors and relative weights will be given to various perspectives and concerns. In other words, our staff and T Board must justify and defend themselves to the satisfaction of their critics.  These folks don't trust our professional Town engineering staff to utilize appropriate judgement and they don't trust our Transportation Board to be thoughtful and considerate of multiple stakeholders.  This despite the fact that their decisions have not resulted in any safety problems and they hold multiple well-noticed hearings on each decision they make.  It is hard for some to see the validity of doing anything on behalf of the bicyclist, despite the many benefits alluded to earlier. 

It seems that the idea that bikes require any kind of specific treatment or accommodation really doesn't sit well with those opposed to bikes in the first place.  There was a sentiment expressed that if bicyclists can't follow the rules, then we should not make any attempt to accommodate them.  This is a catch-22, as it is the lack of accommodation that can make biking that much more challenging, leading to unorthodox riding behavior.  It was argued that because pedestrians jaywalk and drivers park on the wrong side of the street, we can't legalize a bike route that might conflict with these other illegal behaviors.  What?  Here we see an articulation of a biased preference and unconscious hierarchy that prejudice some persons' world view.  I don't hear bicyclists decry sidewalks and roadways because motorists and pedestrians don't always follow the rules.  Treating bicyclists as a third class citizen is pervasive.  Pitting one "mode" of transportation against the others fosters aggression, animosity and ill will.

We can't afford to think this way.  Being safe and accommodating each mode appropriately is possible and necessary.  What is lacking here is empathy.  This isn't surprising.  If you've never tried to ride a bike in traffic you cannot understand the degree of vulnerability you feel on a bike.  You couldn't possibly understand the intricacies of how difficult it is to safely navigate a left turn on busy multi-lane streets on a bike.  You would not understand why it seems like a bicyclist is swerving randomly, when in fact they are trying to stay erect by dodging debris and potholes at the side of the road.  And yes, it might make sense and be safe for a bike to travel a short way down a road in a direction prohibited to cars.  The adage "Same road, Same rules" is helpful because it establishes that the appropriate place for bikes is in the street and admonishes everyone to think of the bike as a vehicle.  But, it is overly simplistic.  A bike is fundamentally different, and infinitely more vulnerable.  So let's try to be safe, courteous, conscious and empathetic out there.  We don't need to impose more burdens on our Transportation Board.  If someone doesn't like a decision they can appeal it to the Board of Selectmen.  Let's send a message that we support bicycling and bike facilities.  Vote no on Article 23.

What's Wrong with Article 13?

Article 13 began life as a resolution calling for the installation of a pedestrian-actuated traffic control signal at the Green St. crosswalk in Coolidge Corner.  That's the crosswalk going from Friendly's to Upper Crust and the Coolidge Corner Theater at the corner of Green St. and Harvard St. in the heart of our beloved CC shopping district.  The Article has since been amended to call for a study of said light.

The petitioner claims that all will be right with the universe if we do this.  In this alternate universe, pedestrians will line up and press the button, then patiently wait a minute and a half, happy to cross when the whooshing vehicles are finally forced to stop by the red light, the pedestrians will scurry quickly across, then once again the vehicles will resume whooshing.  All this will occur because the traffic lights at the nearby intersections at Beacon and Babcock will be coordinated and perfectly synced to move the traffic in seamless flow.  Too bad none of this alternate reality scenario resembles reality.

I can appreciate the appeal and simple logic of this idea.  Unfortunately, the traffic and pedestrian flows along this stretch of Harvard are anything but simple and the addition of a traffic control signal at Green St. will wreak havoc to traffic flows along this stretch of Harvard.  Consider the following:  1) Traffic flows are two-way and these two-way flows are not equally balanced.  2) There are turning vehicles that enter the traffic stream on Harvard St., even when Harvard St. is red at Beacon.  Vehicles turn right, going north from westbound Beacon, vehicles turn left from westbound Babcock.  3) These folks, along with those at the tail end of the previous green light and other, non-synced flows (contrary to popular belief the lights cannot be perfectly synched due to reasons #1 and #2)  will be stopped for 20 seconds or more at the new light at the Green St. cross walk.  Hardly a recipe for whooshing.  4)  If you think slowing and occasionally stopping for pedestrians at the crosswalk is annoying for drivers now, imagine a light stopping all traffic for one-half of the available time (Beacon green), whenever anyone may have pushed the button, whether they are there now or not.  and 5) The travel lanes widen to two just before and through the Beacon St. intersection, then suddenly tapering down to one again, right before the cross walk.  This bulge and squeeze is the real reason there is a flow issue at Beacon and Harvard, not the cross walk.

The petitioner has told us that the pedestrian light is not a new idea, that its been studied and recommended before.  This is absolutely not true.  The 2005 study he cites had it wrong, (there existing conditions report stated that there was already a light there), and simply recommended the signals be coordinated.  Clearly, these folks had a keen power of observation.  The other 2009 study concluded that the Green St. crosswalk did not seem to be a dominant issue creating backups.  This was based on field observation and not a study of potential impacts.  The petitioner also stated that all other options for improvement had been tried.  Again, not true.  Professor Peter Furth, former Transportation Board member, professor of civil engineering at Northeastern University, PhD from MIT in Transportation Systems and recipient of the 2004, Best Paper award from the Transportation Research Board Committee on Traffic Signal Systems, strongly warns against signalizing the crosswalk.  Peter's advanced traffic signal control class looked at this stretch of Harvard St. as a case study.  They concluded that the core problem was that too many vehicles were passing through the Beacon St. intersection and that this problem could be corrected by shortening the length of the traffic signal cycle.  Professor Furth strongly warns against putting such a light here, and as a resident of Brookline he strongly objects, noting how well the crosswalk works now and understanding the benefits to maintaining a safe, pedestrian friendly shopping district.  Professor Furth's study, complete with traffic flow simulations is the most indepth study done to date, and yet the petitioner did not even bother to read it.   Brookline's Director of Engineering, Peter Ditto testified at the Selectmen's hearing on this Article that his Department did not feel a pedestrian-actuated light should be studied.

There is Town wide desire to improve travel conditions in Coolidge Corner, which is why the petitioner has succeeded in gathering some support for the article, but there is also a clear sense, expressed by many, that we should be looking more holistically at travel conditions near Beacon and Harvard and that we should not be entering into a study already having concluded what the source and solution to the problem is.   The petitioner has assured us that other ideas will be looked at.  Yet, this is not what the resolution says, and the resolution cannot be modified because it would become a fundamentally different Article.  I don't know about you but I am not comfortable giving my support to something based on the assurance that really, its not what it says it is.

The fact is the petitioner has decided what improvement is desirable and concluded that it would have a positive result, all without the benefit of professional knowledge, without supporting facts or analysis, without consultation with the Town staff or boards responsible for these decisions, who have been, by the way, working diligently observing, testing and working with consultants to solve the problem.  Doesn't their opinion matter? 

So, what’s wrong with passing the Article and studying the traffic signal?  Surely, the study will come to the same conclusions as Professor Furth and the idea of the traffic signal will be dropped.  For starters, such a study looks at the wrong thing, making it a waste of Town resources, we already have the advantage of a high-caliber free study showing us the way towards a promising alternative improvement.  Second,  directing the scope, focus and policy direction of a consultant’s work away from the fundamental problem and towards a single, ill conceived and predetermined result is bad science and bad policy and will prevent us from identifying better, more cost effective solutions that work for everyone, whether on foot, bike or in a car.  And third, let's pass a resolution that lets the professionals do their job, instead of telling them what the conclusion is before they start.

Coolidge Corner's Future

What do we love about Coolidge Corner? I love the fact that I can walk there to take care of my daily errands, with the occasional special treat of taking in a movie or browsing at Booksmith. If I'm feeling cooped up or lonely, I can just walk down and have a cup of tea at Peet's. Everyone has their favorite spots. It's not like everyplace else. It's not the mall. We can talk to the people who own their own businesses.

Coolidge Corner is the social hub of Brookline. It's where we are most likely to run into our neighbors. CC defines our town in the minds of many. But now we have just learned the distressing news that instead of McDonald's and Zeeba's flower shop we are to have yet another bank. How utterly boring. Now, I'm no fan of McDonald's (I have read Fast Food Nation and seen Supersize Me), but at least people of all walks of life could get a snack or meal there. Zeeba's Exotic Flowers had some of the best floral arrangements in town. They will be sorely missed.

A bank does not generate much foot traffic. Their store window does not offer visual stimulation or an inviting setting. They are closed at night, taking away from the life of the street for evening saunterers. It's as bad as another cell phone store. Must we allow any business that wants to set up shop? Can we only have those businesses backed by large corporations with big bucks to spend? We are losing the soul of our town. Why not offer a tax break to independents? When it comes time to permit development in CC why not offer incentives to those developers who will put locally owned retail businesses on the first floor? This is a trend we can no longer ignore. It is not going to fix itself and we can't count on being lucky. The economic forces bringing the chains to our door will not change. We need to address them in a meaningful way.

There has been an ongoing planning effort underway in CC. The goals are two-fold. One to determine what we would like to see built in a few spots that are ripe for redevelopment and two to help protect the surrounding neighborhoods from tear downs that result in overly dense rebuilding and loss of character. Mention has been made of implementing "form-based zoning", which focuses more on regulating the streetscape and building design and scale of new building. It's a way to enforce more appropriate contextualizing of new building. All good. The neighborhoods would gain a great deal by establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Districts.

But what would make CC a great place, a special place that reflects our values and is welcoming and fun to visit? Retaining independent businesses is a good start. Better streetscape design would really help. Keeping in mind that CC is the social hub of Brookline, it becomes apparent that what we are lacking is a public gathering place. Anyone who has experienced the festive atmosphere at the farmer's market understands that it is popular for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is its social function. Why not extend that idea to a year round market? Like the Pike's Place market in Seattle. Part of the market would have to be indoors, and it should include fresh food, prepared food and places to eat in a public setting. It would have to be town owned and administered to help the fresh food providers survive economically, but what an asset for the town!

Some have expressed a desire for "green space" in CC. While I am as much of a tree-hugger as anyone, I think this is misguided. We need a people place. That's what CC is all about. If we think of our public place as a "Plaza" we get the right idea. Of course it could have small ornamental trees, a fountain, even tall grasses in planters, a spot of grass maybe even, but a "nature" area it is not. Not a patch of grass to look at, no, it needs to be a place with tons of seating for people watching. Maybe it could even be a site for outdoors concerts, poetry readings, drama, etc. It could never be big enough to be a true natural area, and we don't go to CC for solitude. Fortunately we have Hall's Pond near to us for that.

CC is at a crossroads. It is up to us to envision the CC of the future. Now is the time to use our imaginations and let the ideas fly. Remember the Brookline 300 celebration? All of those people surging down Harvard Street? There was a palpable sense of shared pride and happiness in our town's success. All of those people would love to come back to experience that type of "street life" again. As we withdrawal more and more into our private domains and the Internet, etc. we need that experience of community and human contact even more.

Why not think about sharing the road with people a bit more? There are plenty of ways to accomplish this, through wider sidewalks, traffic calming, even selective street closings. We need to make CC more friendly to the pedestrian, not the car. It's the walkablity and pedestrian environment in consort with its unique shops, that makes CC special and the better we make that, the more people will come. People are yearning to experience environments that are not the ubiquitous suburban sprawl swallowing much of the rest of our country.

Our history has blessed us with a built environment made before the automobile took over our public realm. Its dense enough to support mass transit, rich in beautiful architecture, and softened with lots of trees, but we can not coast on our laurels and hope for the best. The same threats and economic forces that have created anywhere USA are present and active here too. Only vigilance, regulatory change and a clearly articulated vision of something other will protect us.

What would you like to see in Coolidge Corner's future?

The Future of Public Service in Brookline

I'm disappointed. The trust we have put in our town government has been violated. With no real explanation, a talented and dedicated volunteer has been canned, and the cause of historic preservation has been dealt a blow. I am speaking about Dennis DeWitt, an architectural historian who selflessly gave his time to serve the town by volunteering on the Preservation Commission. In a recent vote the Board of Selectmen demoted him to the position of non-voting alternate.

Through the years the Town of Brookline has recognized the need to protect our vital historic legacy, and the voters have repeatedly endorsed the legal framework created to carry out this mission. Like the zoning board and numerous other boards and commissions, the Selectmen appoint suitable members to these boards. Candidates are chosen (we hope) based on their expertise, skill and willingness to serve and charged with enforcing rules and regulations and advancing the mission of the board. Sometimes difficult decisions are made, and sometimes petitioners are disappointed or down right incensed. This fact makes me all the more grateful and indebted to those individuals who take up the task and accept appointment to these boards.

No one has accused Dennis DeWitt of failing to execute the duties of the Preservation Commission. In fact, it seems that everyone who has ever been before the Commission or worked with Dennis speaks of his knowledge, expertise, and considered fairness. What more could you want? And yet, he gets demoted. Why? Because someone doesn't want the Commission to do its job. But the people of Brookline do. It was his talent that made Dennis a target for those who do not support historic preservation. But the people of Brookline do. And this is where the violation of our trust comes in.

Removing a board member in this fashion is an abuse of power, and we have all learned a hard lesson in the process. That our system is vulnerable to this type of action. That despite what we vote on and declare as the will of the people, we are dependent on those in office to carry out this mandate. Our only recourse may be to simply vote those Selectmen who were party to this action out of office.

A wet blanket has been thrown over all those dedicated citizens who selflessly take up the call to public service by serving on our boards and commissions. They are the troops who get the job done and we need them, and owe them thanks and gratitude, and yet because of Dennis's fate, others must now fear that, regardless of how scrupulously they administer their boards mission, someone may not like that and therefore they could be out tomorrow. How's that for an incentive.

With such a proud history of impassioned involvement in local affairs in Brookline we need to honor and encourage those who serve in order to continue reaping the benefits of their talents and passion. Attracting those individuals whose integrity and dedication to civic life lead them to public service requires our government to be both accountable and transparent. These two attributes seem to be missing in this case.