What Kind of Housing?

What on first blush might seem like an insignificant residential addition to an existing building near Coolidge Corner, has fanned the flames of a long standing debate. The request to "legalize" a four bedroom basement apartment has brought up many issues and concerns. The assessor's database lists the building as a three family. It is set mid-block in a row of attached three story walk-ups, some of which are condos, some rental apartments and others owner-occupied three-families.

This proposal could be an object lesson, giving us an opportunity to examine some deeply held beliefs; some ideals we may or may not prescribe to and some prejudices we may not like admitting we have. It also highlights some serious procedural problems that have simply made matters worse.

First off, we should look at the specifics of the proposal. The building is currently owned by an out of town landlord, who bought the building a year and a half ago and applied for a building permit to rehab the basement apartment, converting a 2 bedroom one bath unit to a 4 bedroom 2 bath unit. Amazingly, he was given the permit. Next door is another rental building. Two doors down, is an owner occupied condominium. All of these buildings are attached and were built together in 1920, and present a unified facade to the street.

Visually, the differences in ownership and occupancy are apparent. The condo building has a beautiful wood door and looks well maintained with fresh plantings gracing the stairway. The building in question's front door is the standard issue aluminum frame and the front yard has a short chain link fence bordering its weed-filled yard. The newly installed electrical boxes were mounted prominently on the front of the building and have already begun to rust.

The current owner of the building bought a three unit building. Of course he must have known about the then two bedroom unit in the basement, but the town didn't. Neither the current owner nor the past has paid taxes on a four unit building. The other similar buildings on this block that do have basement units have small one bedroom units, approximately 680 sq. ft in size. The proposed unit is 1, 848 sq. ft. The notice for the Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing on this application states that a total 5 Special Permits and 8 Variances are required in order for this unit to be legalized. Clearly, this should tell us something about how incompatible this intensity of usage is with the parcels' zoning.

Many residents in this neighborhood (myself included) have complained about the noise and destruction caused by roving bands of drunken students. This is a very real and disturbing phenomena. For those who live near to the party of origin, sleep is an elusive goal. While it is not possible to predict or dictate who will live in this basement unit or any rental housing for that matter, the proposed configuration of many bedrooms in a basement unit with as much parking as possible is geared towards that segment of the rental market. Families tend to seek out buildings with other families and professionals. They value quiet and they also value lots of light and air and are often willing to make do with fewer bedrooms to achieve these benefits.

The perception that the number of students living in North Brookline has increased in recent decades, is in fact true and is reflected in the 1990 and 2000 Census data for tract #4002 (roughly Precinct 2). The number of 18 -24 year olds increased from 672 to 1,078 which, as a percentage of the population is an increase from 12.16% to 18.37%. Meanwhile the number of adults aged 25+ declined from 4, 027 to 3,951, which is, as a percentage from 73% to 67% of the population.

Many individuals who support both affordable housing and the wisdom of building housing in proximity to our transit resources cite these reasons as supporting arguments for this particular conversion. This reveals a lack of attention to the particulars of design, issues of crowding and the functional ramifications to a setting that will come to bear in the immediate vicinity and beyond. Objections to density are usually a result of concerns about crowding, lack of open space, poor space planning and lack of usable and pleasant pedestrian/public spaces. These are issues that are real and will be a result of this proposal. It is an example of density done badly. A three story attached walk-up, as the building is now, and as it is zoned for, is a moderately dense residential setting, one that is adequately dense to support both public transit and neighborhood commercial areas and therefore is not an appropriate location for additional density. An average density of 13 dwelling units per acre, which is what the M1.5 FAR zone is, is a standard level of density acknowledged in urban planning practice as an appropriate target level for Transit Oriented Development.

There are other areas where additional housing density could be much more appropriately accommodated. Primarily, as upper levels in buildings within our business districts. This mixed use configuration has the additional advantage of maximizing the potential for non-auto transportation, due to residents' walking proximity to retail, services, employment and transit.

Another option is the adaptive re-use of existing large single-family homes, through the addition of accessory units, etc. This is something that the Housing Advisory Board is exploring as a policy proposal. This idea addresses several significant trends simultaneously, namely the increasing financial difficulty of maintaining a large home and the aforementioned diminution of household sizes and the need for more, smaller housing options. If the additional housing were located within walking of distance of transit and neighborhood business districts and parking were limited, another sustainable development goal would be met. While there are many aspects of this proposal that must be carefully thought out, I believe it identifies and foresees changes that will occur nonetheless due to trends in demographics, energy costs, economics, etc. It makes sense to get out ahead of the curve and manage the change, rather than having it simply overwhelm us. It would be better to allow and manage accessory units rather than lose a great deal of our housing stock and neighborhood character to teardowns. Without very well articulated formbased codes, new building may not be compatible with existing structures.

Adaptive use of existing homes and structures has significant energy and therefore environmental benefits. While it may be true that our older buildings are not as energy efficient as brand new LEED buildings, structures built before WWII are more efficient than anything built between 1945-2000. Existing buildings have a great deal of embedded energy, and their re-use avoids the destruction and construction of vast amounts of materials. If we can retrofit them with some energy saving materials and technologies, we will have made significant strides towards providing energy efficient and needed housing. We will also preserve our historic architecture where appropriate and maintain the visual qualities of neighborhood streetscapes, avoiding teardowns and incompatibly scaled infill.

We need to think a bit more clearly about just what we mean when we say affordable housing. What segment of the market is truly under served and what segment of the market would we like to accommodate? Who do we want to attract to Brookline? Is it in our best interest to invest in creating housing opportunities for long term residents who feel vested in their community? Is this a goal we can actually do something about? How do our policies and planning practices impact these personal decisions?

As someone who is directly impacted by the influx of students to my area, I do not see it as good town policy to promote the building of housing designed and configured to attract students. Besides the directly negative impacts to the neighborhood, there are consequences to the community from accommodating a larger transient population. It is true that we of course cannot dictate who chooses to rent a particular unit, but we can design our zoning ordinances and building codes, and enforce them in a manner consistent with, the intent to augment our housing stock with units suitable for the growing segment of our population in need of reasonably priced housing. Namely, working families, middle-aged singles, older adults, single parent households, etc. While there are opportunities and programs for low income rental and ownership housing, there is a lack of housing in the middle range. This is the population that is being squeezed out by landlords catering to students, and in terms of potential home owners, middle income residents are loathe to purchase or remain in areas rife with the high levels of student residents. Therefore, the influx of students to an area can dissuade a potential property owner from purchasing a home in that area. The homeowners still there have been dealt a blow to both their quality of life and their property's value.

Sadly, in the case of the basement apartment, some felt that because a mistake had been made in granting the original building permit, that the zoning relief should therefore be granted. While the property owner may have a legitimate complaint about this mistake, this is a separate issue from whether or not this intensity of use is appropriate for this site. This later question is the one before the zoning board of appeals and it is upon this and the criteria for granting special permit and variances, especially the impacts to the neighborhood, that must take precedence.

This occurrence has focused a lens on the need for consistency and diligence in permitting procedures and practices, causing many to feel a lack of trust and security. This is unfortunate and we should openly talk about and address this issue.

[where:02446]

Greening Brookline: One Condominium Building at a Time

I live in a three story brick U-shaped courtyard condominium building. Built in 1940, there are aspects of old world construction that give the place its character like the hard wood floors, solid wood panel doors and archways between the rooms. There are also many "art deco" flourishes, such as pink and black bathroom tiles in many of the units, that owners have dealt with in a number of ways over the years. But there is a solidity and thickness to the walls, with their settling cracks and impenetrability that makes hanging art require a masonry drill bit, that you just wouldn't find in newer construction. All in all, for a 68 year old building, its doing pretty well.

For better or worse, 50 unit owners have made an investment in this place. We are stuck with the building and all its foibles and we are stuck with each other! For those of you who also live in a condominium, I know you are shaking your head in a knowing way. For nothing focuses the forces of democracy, nor reveals the depths of petty differences, quite like the joint ownership of ones' home!

Into this setting, comes the realities of climate change, peak oil, environmental concerns in general, and the need to rethink just about everything about how we operate. A similar scenario is being replayed at just about every other condo building large and small across town I am sure. In response, a small group of us have formed an ad hoc committee to tackle the "Greening" of our building. One or two trustees are members. Each of us has our pet issue. Natural lawn care, more recycling, energy efficiency, etc. The number one problem of course are the two extremely thirsty industrial-sized oil-fed boilers rumbling away in the basement. Since we all had to shell out a painfully large extra amount of cash just to keep the things fed this winter, we are in no position to hire "experts" or buy our way to any amazing solutions. No, this is a DIY operation, but we are gung-ho! Motivated and hoping to motivate others. Plus, we happen to know someone who is an "expert" who is equally gung-ho who offered to come take a look at our building gratis and to offer us an initial evaluation and suggestions (Thank-you Jim!).

First on Jim's list, of course, was the "low hanging fruit" of insulation. Our back doors need replacing or at least weather stripping and the single pane glass windows could be covered. Same goes for the bare water pipes in the basement and the skylights in the stairwells. We are planning an "Eco-day" fun work day, with refreshments to get this work done. A bit of camaraderie and elbow grease will be empowering, ultimately saving a bit of energy. Then of course there's the issue of windows. Some of the units purchased new windows as a group a few decades ago. Problem was, it was optional, so not all the units have them. It's unclear whether or not the Trust can mandate new windows, but at a minimum we are hoping for storm windows for everyone. The irony here is that our heating system is so uneven that some people freeze while others boil. So what you get are people opening their windows! even after they shut off their radiators. So, how do you justify sweating (no pun intended) the energy loss of the windows when you have this going on? Ultimately, we would be better off with individual heat/cool/hot water units, running on natural gas in each condo. These would be much more efficient and comfortable, but the conversion cost too high and the energy source not renewable.

We are looking into converting to natural gas, as an interim solution. It is at least cleaner, cheaper and domestic. The National Grid commercial sales rep and installation contractor have been positive and encouraging, as they run around like the energizer bunny trying to service the demand from all those beleaguered oil customers. Indeed, the entire Northeast's greatest and most pressing sustainability challenge is the need to transition from oil heat dependence. We are pushing hard to make this happen before the cold months return.

What about the roof? No one can agree about whether or not it lacks insulation. Should we get an official energy audit? But what really got us excited was Jim's vision of the future. Up on that big flat roof of ours, he saw solar panels that could capture the sun's energy to heat our hot water, (currently heated from those same oil-guzzling beasts). I'm hoping that next year is the year for solar here, as the State legislature has just passed its new energy bill. Included therein are provisions for both rebates, the ability to rent solar panels to own (minimizing capital outlay) and if we are lucky enough to generate extra electricity we can sell it to NStar! Solar panels proliferated across Germany once the government set the buy back price of energy high enough to make investment in the panels worthwhile. Jim told us that with the help of an electrician we could do some of the installation ourselves. We are eager to get started!

On the long-term horizon the vision gets interesting. Jim's idea? Geothermal, zoned for each unit, with solar augmentation. We have the unique advantage here of having a large courtyard where we could sink many wells. How feasible is this? We don't really know. There is one house in Brookline on Winchester Street that derives all its heating/cooling energy needs from geothermal, but it is essentially a newly constructed building.

Here is where our seven member group got into trouble. Suddenly, there were rumors running wild through the building that this group of eco-freaks were going to be assessing everyone immediately for a $1,000,000 geothermal energy system! Our manager declared he wanted nothing to do with us. The shrill emails flew and no one was being rational. Obviously we had a communications problem. Not too surprising. We only have one annual unit owners meeting a year, at the end of the year. No one knows what's going on. It's natural that fear and concern about such major decisions would cause anxiety and fear. So added on to our to-day list was getting every unit owners email and doing a newsletter. The newsletter can share all the research information we turn up, like our rate of recycling, or energy use statistics. We can educate and encourage. We talked about maybe needed a big meeting.

Many owners thought "going green" meant more expensive. Our objectives are focused on both short and long term cost control and adopting practices that will generate less waste, etc. To me, this lack of foresight and denial of reality is the most frustrating part of this. Doing nothing is not a neutral option, it is a recipe for continued waste, inefficiency, escalating costs and increased environmental damage. Any well thought out investment we make at this point to reduce our energy use or shift to renewable energy sources or remove harmful chemicals from our environment will have paybacks that far outweigh the cost. Even if you are not planning on living in your unit for long, which condo is more attractive to the potential buyer, the one that has got its energy needs secured for the future or the one at the complex that has buried its head in the (Middle Eastern) sand? Being able to market our building as a "green" building and have that actually mean something, will be extremely valuable to a great many people for a multitude of reasons.

Changing our cleaning or landscaping company to ones that use earth friendly practices and products could be challenging. We are just now researching our options. A significant obstacle in this regard will be the discounts given for multi-building contracts. Our management company manages many buildings. Being a lone wolf building with a new company could be difficult or costly or both, we shall see.

While we are trying to do as much as we can for ourselves, we are also hoping that as governments respond to the needs for energy evaluation and improvements there will be some assistance coming our way, both technical and financial. Until then, we will carry on, hopefully communicating and exchanging ideas to bring some positive changes. A clearing house of information between condo associations would be a useful thing, so we all don't have to re-invent the wheel!

Lessons from London

I had the great good fortune of attending a lecture given by Nicky Gavron, former deputy mayor of London at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge yesterday. Her topic? London's comprehensive climate action plan. There were many valuable lessons here, most notably, the importance of leadership. Several of us from Brookline were there, David Lowe, Cynthia Snow and Bruce Wolff that I recognized, perhaps there were others.

She began her talk with some sobering statistics. The climate change we are experiencing now in the form of climate disruptions, etc. is from emissions released in the 1950's! The persistence of greenhouse gases are impossible to mitigate. Next, she told us that what was 1 year's worth of emissions in the 1950's are now released in 6 weeks. In sum, we have less than one decade to stabilize our emissions to avoid catastrophic consequences.

This was the extent of the doom and gloom however, because Nicky is a doer. In fact I think she thrives on the challenge of it all and is, with her former mayor and the rest of her staff and constituency, succeeding in remarkable ways. Like all successful strategies theirs is a top down and bottom up strategy. Multi-faceted and interlocking. Complex and chaotic. Marshalling the forces of the law, persuasion, co-operation, education, experimentation, data-gathering, pricing and procurement, all in the service of reducing carbon emissions, their climate change plan has improved the quality of life for London's 7.5 million citizens and spurred a new economic prosperity. London has the fastest growing economy of all the G7 cities.

This didn't happen overnight of course. It began with the 1992 Rio summit. In 2000, London directly elected their mayor who came in with the mission and mandate to respond in a substantive way to climate change. The mayor is overseen by a council of 25 elected representatives. 14 of these are from geographical districts. 11 are at-large. Two points seem important about this. A strong mayor is essential to keeping everyone on point and councils should have a good number of at-large members. This later one is so because there needs to be a strong non-parochial voice speaking for the overarching goal of carbon reduction and the livability of the city as a whole. I won't go into the implications for Brookline of these two points here, other than to say they are both ideas that have relevance and are worth considering as we face the daunting challenges of the 21st century.

Nicky believes that with their plan they can achieve a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025. Their goal is a 60% reduction, which would be made achievable in their estimation if national policies included, carbon pricing, renewable energy investment and the removal of barriers (regulatory and practical) to local energy production. All this within the context of a population
increase of 1 million people.

Each listener had their own area of interest I am sure, and there was much food for thought. For me, I was eager to hear about their transportation and land use policies and practices. London has a strict green belt surrounding it, "hemming in" any future growth, (past foresight!) and has also adopted a policy of not building on any remaining open space within the core area either. Theirs is a strategy focused on co-locating transit access and development, "densifying" existing growth areas where transportation is available. Substantial investment in transit both from a "hard ware" point of view and on the customer service end of things preceded a highly successful congestion pricing plan. Now in its fifth year, the congestion pricing plan reduced the number of cars entering the center city by 36%. Congestion itself was reduced by 25% and an expansion of the program to the west is being considered. Significant reductions in accidents and pollution were realized almost immediately and retail sales figures have in fact grown in the core at twice the rate of the remaining area's average. I believe this must be because a less congested core is once again an attractive shopping destination.

Of those who previously drove 55-60% switched to buses or transit. There was no significant shift to off-pricing hours. There are many details that have made the program successful. A few key points are: 1) Draconian enforcement of the bus lanes, (no one parks in them, thus assuring decent service), 2) TDM is practiced at major employers, including personalized travel coaching , 3) All new revenues generated from the fees goes towards improving public transportation.

Ah, we here in the land of un-coordinated overlapping agencies, unplanned development and independent fiefdoms can, in many ways, simply look upon such logical and systematic action with longing and envy. But, hope does spring eternal. At the Q & A I had the opportunity to ask her if their transport strategies included any kind of co-ordinated parking measures. Here is what she said: 1) Well, it is incredibly expensive to park in London, I don't even know how much it is, because I haven't even tried it for so long. (Just the other night, our presenter, Jason Schrieber spent a great deal of time talking to us about parking as commodity, set the price right and travel mode choice will be altered, I would have liked to ask her if these were primarily private or public spaces), 2) Parking enforcement is a big issue in the boroughs (suburbs) out side of the charging border) where it must be strictly applied, (sound familiar?), 3) There are vast amounts of subterranean parking underneath London, (didn't get to ask her, but wondered if this was a result of the bomb shelters built in WWII?) so they could not really do much to limit parking, and 4) They are reviewing their parking requirements because they think they are too high especially for residential development in the boroughs where they are dismayed by the loss of yards to parking and have instituted a requirement for 10 sq. meters of open space per unit.

21% of CO2 are from surface transport in a city. Nicky then went on to tell us about the remaining 71% of emissions that come from buildings in cities and ways that they are tackling that. It almost all comes down to energy, mostly for heating and cooling. When I was putting together my talk about sustainable Brookline neighborhoods, I had the idea that the scale of our neighborhoods might lend themselves to small-scale energy production and distribution. Surprisingly, this is a keystone of the London Plan. The benefits to decentralism are multitudinous, including redundancy on the grid, ability to adapt technologies to specific environmental conditions, the potential of combined heat and power generation (where "waste" heat in the form of hot water is used locally), and energy savings from less loss in transmission, etc.

What was really exciting about their whole outlook on the energy technology front was that they took up the mantel of being the driver of innovation. By that I mean that they understood that because of the size of their city, they could, through requiring certain energy innovations such as levels of efficiency and on-site renewable energy generation etc. they could actually stimulate the market to innovate in order to meet that demand. She called it "leap-frogging". I think we would call it jump-starting. And she mentioned several times how we, in the Boston area are sitting in the hot bed of innovation and could surely benefit from just such an approach. Here, her faith in, at least the ingenuity end of things, is, I believe well put. By creating the market for the products, the government has secured the risk! Brilliant. Why wait for the 20 years the companies tell us it will take to make these things work, deploying the infrastructure for recharging, or refining endless prototypes, etc., etc. Here she has truly grasped the importance of the large cities, which , especially if they work in consort with one another, can play a huge role in combating climate change.

She mentioned too, the role for smaller cities, stressing that it is up to us. All the types of decisions that truly have an effect on CO2 emissions occur largely on the local level, such as: How energy efficient are our buildings being built and renovated? How well-coordinated are land-use and transportation decisions? What behaviors can individual households change to reduce emissions and how can we support those?

Most convincing was her belief in the fact that aggressively addressing climate change and thereby securing her cities energy security, mobility and prosperity, she was securing its long-term viability and livability.

For anyone wishing to learn more about London's Climate Action Plan here are some useful links:
The London Plan (the over-arching policy document)
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/index/jsp

The London Climate Change Action Plan:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climate-change/ccap/index.jsp

Congestion Charge Impacts Monitoring Fifth Annual Report (warning for data junkies only)
http://www.tfl.gov.uk.assets/downloads/fifth-annual-impacts-monitoring-report-2007-07-07.pdf

UN Climate Action Programme piece: (Excellent essay by Nicky about role of cities)
http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/features/article/the_role_of_cities_in_tackling_climate_change/

[where:02446]

Anatomy of a Parking Space

The standard dimensions for a perpendicular parking space are 9 ft. x 19 ft., with an additional 24 ft. of pavement required behind the rows for access and egress. Parallel parking spaces must be 9 ft. wide and 24 ft. long. So, each car requires 216 to 279 sq. ft. of pavement to park. That is a lot of space for one vehicle that often carries only one person. That is also a lot of land to cover with an impervious surface. At the dawn of the auto age America seemed a vast and limitless reservoir of both space and land and we quickly set about dispersing ourselves.

We even felt compelled to accommodate the auto within our cities, riping through neighborhoods and destroying the fabric of our human scaled street networks to build parking lots and roadways, in an attempt to merge the vital hearts of commerce with the freedom and easy access of the automobile. The strategy was of course doomed to fail. The landscape became one of ramps, roads and parking lots. Once out of our vehicle the human body is met with the cold gray concrete of parking decks, or we must walk along side the empty threatening space of vast expanses of parking lots. A visit to Detroit, center of the automotive universe, holds many lessons on how not to build a city. They are struggling to overcome the past and have made some significant steps in the right direction, especially with their new waterfront park, but have a long way to go.

We are now beginning to have an intelligent discussion about parking in Brookline. There have been some surprising revelations. (Surprising to me anyway!) and I feel there are also some serious misconceptions. A major concern many people have centers around cars parked on residential streets. Everyone has a different theory about who these cars belong to and why they are there, but there is an intense dislike of them. I have heard the sentiment "I don't want Brookline to look like Cambridge or Somerville or Allston" from many people. Apparently these individuals perceive the big difference between these communities to be the presence of cars on the street. No one sees the irony in the fact that they all want to own cars and drive them where they want, but don't want to see them in parking lots or on the street. Personally, I think one of the biggest differences in the look of these various communities is the number of street trees. The other is the quality of the housing stock. But back to this fixation on the number of cars parked on the street. At first I thought this had to do with residents not being able to park (or their visitors) in front of their home because of these interlopers. But I don't think that quite gets at the heart of it. It is more about an idealized image of what a Brookline neighborhood is supposed to look like. And it doesn't have cars on the street. Hence the overnight parking ban. We have achieved what we wanted there, but the result has been another problem.

Free parking for commuters. Without good enforcement of our two-hour parking limit, it seems many have found it convenient to park all day and take the T or walk to their work destinations. I don't see this where I live, but it is apparently a big problem around Brookline Village. Where the breakdown in logic occurs is when people think this problem is related to the amount of legal parking provided in the Village. No amount of paid parking in the Village will make a dent in this problem. For one thing, the free parkers have no interest in paying for their parking. For another thing, the demand is infinite. If we attempted to accommodate the demand for commuter parking we would only be inviting more and more vehicles into our already overburdened, congested roadways and neighborhoods, further degrading an already dangerous and conflict ridden environment. The only answer is good enforcement of the two-hour parking limit.

Flowing from this "get them off the street" desire, there is a powerful seduction to the "out of sight out of mind" solution of "stuffing the cars in a big hole in the ground", aka the underground parking garage. If we just build enough spaces in the underground garage, we will be able to put all the cars in it and our streets will remain "unsullied" by the nasty cars cluttering them up. There are a few serious flaws in the logic here. First off, cars do not levitate to the garage. They must make there way there, twisting and turning, pushing and squeezing through our over-crowded intersections and roadways, playing chicken with each other because of the double parkers too lazy to park properly and worse, playing chicken with pedestrians and bicyclists who are just in the way. Crowd enough of these vehicles and people into the same confined system and conflicts escalate, its a matter of physics. Your big garage is a magnet, pulling more and more vehicles into the spot you had hoped to remove them from.

Highway engineers had to face this conundrum long ago. There truly is such a thing as induced demand. They learned that you cannot build your way out of congestion. Once you make it flow better, everyone wants to use it and you are back where you started. It is a treadmill that never stops. The best you can hope for is to strike a balance. That's why the Big Dig wasn't bigger. It is hopefully big enough. It was meant to be done in conjunction with improvements to transit, so that we could move as many people as possible with our excellent mass transit. There is real efficiency there on every level.

The strongly held view in Brookline is that we must accommodate all the "demand" for parking on site for each new development or else there will be overflow into the neighborhoods or worse the dreaded circling and searching for parking. We have never had a handle on just how to predict what that "demand" is, hence our current debate that will surely continue about just how many parking spaces are needed at 2 Brookline Place. It is a much bigger question. The parking rates in our zoning code are flawed to say the least, being based on suburban locations and related only to the square footage and use of a building, variables which are often poor predictors of a businesses activity level. Rates are just not the way to go. A more nuanced approach is necessary, one based on the realities of each situation. But I won't go into all the details here, only to say that demand for parking, like any other commodity in the market place, is in fact dynamic. Just as drivers respond to the free flowing new roadway in the induced demand example above, parkers respond to the availability of easy/cheap parking when deciding whether or not to drive, take the T, walk or bike.

The other day, I was walking home from my appointment in the Longwood medical area and a fellow next to me on the sidewalk, with his Beth Israel Deaconess ID tag dangling from his belt on his cellphone said, "I can't believe I was so stupid to drive in today". Exactly. Tomorrow he won't be so stupid. I'm not making this up, this really happened.

There are some who believe that our traffic problems are actually caused by people driving around looking for parking. Traffic volumes are up because people are out driving their cars to and from their various destinations. There are a few stubborn individuals who refuse to park more than a few feet from their destination and they will either circle, idle or double park. For the more flexible individual, accommodation is almost always available, as our recent parking utilization study of Coolidge Corner revealed.

For those who hold this view, if everyone could just drive up and park right where they wanted, we would have free flowing roadways. Those roadways however would have to be so big we would have to obliterate the very destination buildings they seek to serve. I suggest they spend one day with a traffic planner running intersection analyses to see that the actual number of cars on a roadway is the determining factor for how much delay will be experienced and that there is a point at which the capacity is exceeded and delay becomes infinite. In other words, it doesn't matter how big those parking lots are, the cars won't be able to get there!

Another serious problem with the on-site disappearing cars scenario is that it precludes the provision of shared public parking. There are many benefits to shared parking, which I have written about previously. It is vastly more efficient, allowing us to dedicate much less land/space/resources to parking and it engenders social interaction and good urban design, all positive goals for Brookline.

If you are at all interested in any of these issues, please come to the upcoming parking forum:

Better Parking = Better Brookline
Monday, June 9, 2008
7- 9 pm
Old Lincoln School Auditorium

Speakers are Jason Schrieber, of Nelson/Nygaard, a national leader in Transit Orient Development, Travel Demand Management, and parking management.

Al Raine, former Chief of Planning and Development for the Dukakis Administration and now National Practice Leader for Transit Oriented Development with DMJM + Harris. Al Raine is a Brookline resident and member of the Economic Development Advisory Board.

There will be a question and answer period after the speakers.

The forum is sponsored by: Brookline Planning Board, Brookline Transportation Board, Climate Change Action Brookline, Brookline Conservation Commission, Economic Development Advisory Board and Brookline GreenSpace Alliance

[where: 02446}

Tale of Three Neighborhoods

I've lived in Brookline for twenty years this year. That's longer than any other place I've ever lived, even my home town. During that time, I've inhabited three different abodes, each with its own unique character. But what has really made an impression on me is how different the daily experience of my neighborhood has been in these three places. This, in turn has got me wondering what it is about these three different settings that should make for such different realities. After all they were all in the same town, and in terms of the physical characteristics of my space (some variation on the one or two bedroom condo) they aren't all that different from one another, and yet, there are so many differences when it comes to the feel and tone and pace of life. From the daily rhythm of my neighbors and their patterns of behavior, or the noises I hear, such as the amount of bird song I notice, to the amount of traffic on the streets, all are drastically different.

My first place was a two-bedroom condo in a 1920's courtyard building we rented on Washington St., right next to the amazingly preserved Victorian "gingerbread" house, just up from the intersection of School/Cypress. This location had lots of advantages. It was equidistant to the Village and Coolidge Corner, and the Library was so convenient. My T stop of choice was Brookline Hills, accessed via a pleasant walk through the charming residential neighborhood off of Greenough. I loved watching the ever changing porch displays of window boxes, front yard gardens, flags, etc. as the season warmed. It was a nice way to start and end the day. The courtyard had a nicely overgrown archway entrance that gave it a bit of separation from the too busy Washington St., which we soon learned carried almost all of the firetrucks dispatched in town. One night several of them came to our place as the carriage house behind our building that had been the store house for unlimited junk for too many years burned to the ground, taking our car, which was parked near it, with with. That was the same night of the big fire on White Place. I got to witness first hand our famed "top notch" services, and was grateful for the fine work of our fire department.

But as for neighborhood feel, I have to say, the court yard building itself and the other adjacent buildings, just did not have it. We knew our immediate neighbors in our building, but did not see many people coming or going. Because of this we did not often have the opportunity to stop and chat, that all-important casual encounter that slowly builds ties in more cohesive neighborhoods. Our park of choice was of course Emerson, which on a hot summer night was a favorite haunt after getting a frozen fruit Popsicle at the very convenient convenience store at Cypress/Washington. While our unit was deep within the U of the court yard, we did still hear the constant stream of cars on Washington that did not still until late at night. Being next to the Victorian house meant that we had a beautiful display of maple leaves filtering the sunlight into our kitchen and mitigating the pavement out front. It was a comfortable and pleasant place, like many buildings of its era, with the small tile in the entry way and solid marble steps.

People did not loiter on the sidewalk out front though, and I think this must have been because of the traffic. Maybe visiting both the Village and Coolidge Corner dissipated our loyalties and we did not build up that same kind of familiarity one has going to the same places on a more regular basis. We lived here four years, as we saved for that all important purchase, our condo.

Shopping for a condo in Brookline, is of course an education. We looked at dozens of places. We had become sensitive to those "neighborhood" issues and would go back at night to check the noise level, etc. Of course you never really can tell until you move in...but you do start to look and pay attention, and you can never find that one perfect place, as you have to choose from what's out there when you are looking. But we took our time and ended up buying a place at the corner of Beaconsfield and Dean Rd. This place "had it all" actually more than we were looking for. A roof deck, a fire place, a balcony, an elevator (for only 4 floors!) and a garage, with automatic door opener and direct access to the building. The building had been rebuilt to replace the one that had been destroyed in a gas explosion in 1985, hence all the modern amenities, and no gas. Across the street was the Jean B. Waldstein park. The best feature of which was the laughter of the children sledding in the winter that would float up to our window, the sunset through the majestic trees were a treat too. The T access was to die for and the car simply sat in the garage. The Star Market was a two minute walk, the rest of Washington Square not much further. I often took walks on Fisher Hill, I felt the remains of the Longyear museums' formal garden were my secret sanctuary before the condos came. Oddly enough, no one else did. One day I was shopping for a present for my Dad at a flashy gift store at the Atrium Mall and the woman behind the counter said "You're the woman who I see walking in my neighborhood!" That's how unusual my activity was I guess. I was rather persistent and did not let bad weather deter me. I subscribe to the dictum that there is no inclement weather, just inappropriate clothing choices.

I relate this anecdote to illustrate some features of this neighborhood. While I loved having the Park across the street, this park was mostly an activity park and I did not find myself hanging out there much. There were plenty of ball games, tennis, dog runs, etc. but its steep slope down into it and lack of welcoming seating areas did not create good gathering spaces. So in this regard, it did not seem to help create a cohesive neighborhood spot. While obviously some people walked to Washington Square, etc. the foot traffic seemed confined to Beacon St. Again there was not much loitering on the sidewalk. I took it upon myself to plant some planters to grace our buildings' front door and while I was out there doing that, plenty of people stopped to chat. But our building didn't have a stoop and people didn't really sit out there or spend time out on the sidewalk. If we had a porch or stoop, that would have made a big difference. The other conclusion is most people will not walk somewhere, just to go for a walk the way I did. Dog walkers do, and they often have a social interaction pattern of their own. But for everyone else, they need to be going somewhere or doing something. Without those draws, you won't get life on the streets. Our nearest gathering spots were in Washington Square. So, as much as I found many things to enjoy at this location, I did not have a strong sense of living or identifying with "a neighborhood".

My third spot, where I live now is on Browne Street. Once again I am in a U shaped courtyard building. Our courtyard is big, with beautiful 100 year old maple trees, and it takes a few moments to traverse the walkway from the sidewalk to my front door. This simple fact often brings me in contact with my neighbors. They are out of their cars, even if they have just parked out front. There is a walkway that is protected from traffic and is comfortable to stop and chat on. The people living in this building are welcoming. Is it a self-selecting phenomena? or just a function of the fact that the design of the building allows us the chance to get to know one another in an easy, casual way? Across the street is Winthrop Square park, containing the Minot Rose Garden and a children's play area. A constant stream of people, mostly mothers and children during the day and elderly in the afternoon flow to this place the minute the weather even nears 50 degrees. BU students stop as they pass on St. Paul St. On the weekends when the roses are in bloom the place is packed. Here I see an amazing mix of people chatting to each other or just sharing the space together. The ethnic and cultural diversity in this neck of the woods is pretty amazing. This is a well used park and a true meeting place for the neighborhood.

Browne Street itself doesn't carry much traffic, as it is short and very local access only. So, in terms of traffic noise, this is by far the quietest place I have lived. The birds in the tree outside by window wake me up. The quite street helps make the sidewalks the kind of place you want to stop on, so when you see your neighbor, you feel comfortable spending a few minutes catching up. And here is the biggest difference. There are lots of people out walking on the sidewalks! We all have somewhere to walk to, namely Coolidge Corner or the park or library and there are enough of us that there is some kind of critical mass. The routes we take are pretty predictable too, so this enhances the chance of us seeing each other. So, here, I do feel I live in a neighborhood, this place has achieved that illusive definition.

Changing Me to We

Perhaps you have seen or heard about the logo developed for Al Gore's new endeavor. It is a visual pun on the words me and we, showing an upside down m, which becomes a w before the letter e, all inside a green circle. Like this.

His new organization is called wecansolveit.org. I am reminded about the power of symbolism: an individual, transformed into the collective we, encircled by green. While on some level we may think it overly simplistic, childish even, to reduce a call to action in response to a global crisis to a few letters in a circle, but the power of direct communication cannot be minimized. If a simple idea can be grasped, internalized and function as an inspiration, this is the stuff of cultural shifts. Think of the peace symbol, or the flower being stuffed in the barrel of a gun and what these images meant to the anti-war movement in the Vietnam war era.

The logo spoke to me of the profound change in thinking that will free us from the tyranny of excess, waste and hyper-consumption that has sapped the earth and our cultural of its creative life force. It says we are all in this together. It isn't just about me and what I want today, but rather how do my actions impact the greater whole and how can I contribute to making things better. The Hummer and the gated community may keep the "others" at bay for awhile, but when the water (or oil, etc.) runs out, it runs out for everybody at some point.

And the funny thing is, this turns out not to be about sacrificing, or giving up, but rather it's about relearning self-reliance, getting creative and conscious again. It becomes a relief and is empowering and I believe the American people are ready and yearning to apply themselves if only given the chance. The opportunities for innovation are stupendous. This could be the flowering of a time of unprecedented creativity, a giant leap forward. Perhaps a logo reminding them that me and we are two sides to a whole will do that.

Who among us did not cringe on some deep fundamental level when, after the horrible events of September 11, our President, who, at a time when the country most needed guidance, leadership and a moral compass, instead told us that we should go shopping? How utterly humiliating this was. Not only were we to once again seek the false and fleeting balm of some new gadget or toy, but we were to turn to this at this time of crisis, as if this is all we know how to do. Does this sound familiar? As our "economic stimulus" quick fix checks will soon be hitting the mail box as we once again are encouraged to bury our heads in the sand.

The "we" way of thinking doesn't mean that humans, and our basic needs and wants will or should change, but what it does mean is that in finding news ways of doing and being we will discover greater opportunities for more genuine interactions, meaningful work, greater artistic expression and reestablish closer ties with each other and the natural world. These are all things that have been missing in our lives as a great many people sense.

To bring this down to a more local level, perhaps you read Edith Pearlman's eloquent essay about Brookline's Town Meeting form of government in the April 7th Boston Sunday Globe? As we draw near to that time again, I would like to ask each of you Town Meeting members, and everyone who serves on a board or commission, to keep in mind the "we", which in this case includes the Town as a whole as well as future generations of Brookline citizens and beyond. As Edith put it in her essay, "The ideal representative is the one who closely identifies his own self with the town, even to the point of conflating them -...The good of the municipality is expected to trump that of the individual or the precinct"

[where:02446]

Sustainable Brookline: Next Steps

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]