We will soon be living in an age when we will carry devices or (horrors!) wear implants, that will read information from objects in our environment. I for one am very concerned about just what the nature of this information will be. Like all of our new technologies, these new developments hold both great promise and potential peril.
As someone who has studied and written about natural systems, the built environment, urban history and landscape design, I have often dreamed of the day when this type of information was readily accessible to people in their environment. Think of it. As you passed over a river on a bridge you could access a video showing the formation of the river valley through geologic time, or you could see the water shed depicted on a three dimensional topography map. Wouldn't this help us appreciate the fact that what someone puts on the ground 100 miles up stream eventually gets carried down the river and out to sea? Or what if we could call up a database of indigenous plants and animals from any geographic location, to help us identify the local wildflowers or sort out which were the invasive species? I have always felt that a greater awareness of a locales membership in a larger bio-region would expand our understanding of ecologic interdependence and give us a broader interpretation of the idea of home.
In terms of the built environment we can learn fascinating details about the development of a region or community, from historic industries to building types and social customs to school cultures. The opportunities for real knowledge are endless, and it is possible that our experience of our environment can be enriched and enhanced. Real-time data could offer us insight into our energy consumption, the patterns of movement within our city, or the efficiency of our recycling efforts, for instance. The data rich possibilities are only now being conceived. Of course, it is also possible that all of this information overload will yield only a mediated experience and our devices and individual information consumption will serve only to separate us from any real interaction with our surroundings. We will have to know how to find the proper balance and to share and interact in a real and meaningful way. It seems likely that small-scale economies, personalized service, public festivals and spaces, etc. will become even more cherished rather than less so.
But, as we all know, the world of commerce sees the potential in these technologies too. There have already been experiments where targeted ads have been sent to individuals' cell phones as they pass certain stores. Does this seem intrusive? Yes, I believe most of us would say yes. There will be those few who say they welcome the information, but more advertising is not something most will be asking for. The discouraging part is what the most popular choices are. Are we condemned to suffer the tyranny of the masses? As the current media consolidation phenomena continues, we are told time and again that we are getting what we ask for. But the truth is we aren't given a choice. This argument is getting old and tired. It is being used to justify everything from McDonalds to McMansions and it just rings hollow. If the choices are elevated we will make better choices.
If we are given a menu of information choices, let's hope we choose those types of information that expand our understanding of our place in the world, the natural environment and history, and not simply distract us with more consumerism and isolating entertainment.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Zoning - A Social Contract
Once again there will be some zoning changes proposed for Fall Town Meeting. In general, I agree with the direction these changes are going, they are aimed at protecting existing neighborhoods around Coolidge Corner from the very real threats of loss of homes through demolition and new building that is excessively dense in relation to their surroundings. These twin goals aimed at protecting the Coolidge Corner neighborhoods arose from the lengthy and inclusive planning processes that gave us both the Brookline Comprehensive Plan and the Action Plan for Coolidge Corner. However, on the way to implementation, (drafting the zoning changes), these policy initiatives' intent have been subverted and subsumed by other special interests.
As a result of vocal opposition from a few homeowners and real estate and development interests, the Zoning By-Law Committee has failed to fulfil it's public mandate and instead have proposed modest changes which fall significantly short of stated policy goals. Without getting into the technical specifics of the proposals, I would like to comment generally on some of the issues raised by those who oppose more substantive changes and to point out some of the real costs and missed opportunities suffered by the people of Brookline and those living in the affected neighborhoods of adopting this approach.
Objection to implementation of more substantial changes seem to focus on the loss of the opportunity for individual property owners to sell their property for prices far in excess of the current home's value, based on the extra value attached to the property to be gained from building to the maximum development potential. They do not tell you that this is what they are talking about. Instead, they will say that the proposed zoning change would "reduce the value of their property". This is not true. The value of their existing property (for taxation or market value estimates) is based on what is currently built. So what they are really fighting for is their right to "cash in" by selling their property for tear down and redevelopment (at a much higher density). They consider this some kind of basic right. But what about the resulting impacts on their neighbors, and the town in general. What about the very real possibility that their actions will actually lower the property values of the remaining homes in their neighborhood. Think about it. A few individuals are fighting to protect their ability to sell to a developer who will choose tear-down and denser redevelop, but because of the widespread impacts this choice has it is not an individuals choice, and here is where we need to understand the public and social contract function of a zoning ordinance.
In every arena of human interaction, we have developed laws and rules that identify what most reasonable people think are appropriate limits and compromises on the continuum between individual freedom and public protection/benefits. Zoning came about to ensure certain basic protections from the harmful impacts of noxious land uses. Since that time zoning has evolved to ensure stability and uniformity by identifying very specific uses and dimensional requirements for each property within a given zone. Many feel the protections don't go far enough because they do not deal with many features of buildings and streetscapes that contribute to the character of a particular neighborhood. Just meeting the zoning requirements does not insure a new building will fit harmoniously into an established neighborhood setting. This realization has led to the creation of new types of zoning ordinances such as "form-based" zoning, which requires new buildings to more closely match the form of surrounding buildings.
In many cases, communities find themselves in the unfortunate position of having large areas that are "over-zoned" , thereby allowing new buildings that are much bigger in scale than existing ones, creating the very real threat of new building that is disruptive, intrusive and detrimental to that illusive yet tangible neighborhood feel many of us cherish here in Brookline. This is the case in many Brookline neighborhoods and dealing with this issue was at the heart of the policy objectives identified in our Comprehensive Plan and the C.C.D.P.C. Action Plan.
As with any law, regulation or rule, there are pros and cons, trade-offs and gray areas. In the case of reducing the allowable maximum building square footage to better match existing homes, one of these gray areas is that of additions. My calculations show that the possibility for current homeowners to add (up to an additional 1,000 sq. ft.) onto their existing homes could easily be accommodated while still meeting the overall objective of retaining appropriate scale and neighborhood character.
I believe the majority of citizens in Brookline (especially those living in those neighborhoods near Coolidge Corner where the greatest development pressure exists) would favor a zoning ordinance that retained existing building scales and neighborhood characteristics, if it were written clearly and carefully, was fairly applied and included enough "wiggle room" to accommodate modest additions and change. We have witnessed some really inappropriate new building (1 Somerset comes to mind) and many individuals who have never thought twice about the import of zoning are left scratching their heads. Yet, we don't seem to be able to have an informed and intelligent discussion about these issues. In this way, the social contract is invalid from the outset because is was not developed as a reflection of the public consensus.
As a result of vocal opposition from a few homeowners and real estate and development interests, the Zoning By-Law Committee has failed to fulfil it's public mandate and instead have proposed modest changes which fall significantly short of stated policy goals. Without getting into the technical specifics of the proposals, I would like to comment generally on some of the issues raised by those who oppose more substantive changes and to point out some of the real costs and missed opportunities suffered by the people of Brookline and those living in the affected neighborhoods of adopting this approach.
Objection to implementation of more substantial changes seem to focus on the loss of the opportunity for individual property owners to sell their property for prices far in excess of the current home's value, based on the extra value attached to the property to be gained from building to the maximum development potential. They do not tell you that this is what they are talking about. Instead, they will say that the proposed zoning change would "reduce the value of their property". This is not true. The value of their existing property (for taxation or market value estimates) is based on what is currently built. So what they are really fighting for is their right to "cash in" by selling their property for tear down and redevelopment (at a much higher density). They consider this some kind of basic right. But what about the resulting impacts on their neighbors, and the town in general. What about the very real possibility that their actions will actually lower the property values of the remaining homes in their neighborhood. Think about it. A few individuals are fighting to protect their ability to sell to a developer who will choose tear-down and denser redevelop, but because of the widespread impacts this choice has it is not an individuals choice, and here is where we need to understand the public and social contract function of a zoning ordinance.
In every arena of human interaction, we have developed laws and rules that identify what most reasonable people think are appropriate limits and compromises on the continuum between individual freedom and public protection/benefits. Zoning came about to ensure certain basic protections from the harmful impacts of noxious land uses. Since that time zoning has evolved to ensure stability and uniformity by identifying very specific uses and dimensional requirements for each property within a given zone. Many feel the protections don't go far enough because they do not deal with many features of buildings and streetscapes that contribute to the character of a particular neighborhood. Just meeting the zoning requirements does not insure a new building will fit harmoniously into an established neighborhood setting. This realization has led to the creation of new types of zoning ordinances such as "form-based" zoning, which requires new buildings to more closely match the form of surrounding buildings.
In many cases, communities find themselves in the unfortunate position of having large areas that are "over-zoned" , thereby allowing new buildings that are much bigger in scale than existing ones, creating the very real threat of new building that is disruptive, intrusive and detrimental to that illusive yet tangible neighborhood feel many of us cherish here in Brookline. This is the case in many Brookline neighborhoods and dealing with this issue was at the heart of the policy objectives identified in our Comprehensive Plan and the C.C.D.P.C. Action Plan.
As with any law, regulation or rule, there are pros and cons, trade-offs and gray areas. In the case of reducing the allowable maximum building square footage to better match existing homes, one of these gray areas is that of additions. My calculations show that the possibility for current homeowners to add (up to an additional 1,000 sq. ft.) onto their existing homes could easily be accommodated while still meeting the overall objective of retaining appropriate scale and neighborhood character.
I believe the majority of citizens in Brookline (especially those living in those neighborhoods near Coolidge Corner where the greatest development pressure exists) would favor a zoning ordinance that retained existing building scales and neighborhood characteristics, if it were written clearly and carefully, was fairly applied and included enough "wiggle room" to accommodate modest additions and change. We have witnessed some really inappropriate new building (1 Somerset comes to mind) and many individuals who have never thought twice about the import of zoning are left scratching their heads. Yet, we don't seem to be able to have an informed and intelligent discussion about these issues. In this way, the social contract is invalid from the outset because is was not developed as a reflection of the public consensus.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
They tore the blue house down
I had seen the letter from the zoning board of appeals. Someone wanted to build something on Green Street. I made a note of the address and went to see what structure we were talking about. It was a large blue Victorian house, next to the Temple. I knew it as an alternative high school, with its small sign that said "Beacon High School" with funky cars parked out front and somewhat outrageously dressed students. I remember thinking that the house, while maybe being a bit run down, was a handsome structure with great potential. I assumed the new construction would be a rehab and reuse of the existing structure because it was, after all, a nice old house. Wrong.
One day last week the green construction fence went up around the house. The next day, a front end loader was ripping off huge chunks of the back of the building. I stood on the sidewalk and my jaw dropped. I still held out hope that the ripping would stop and that the front part of the blue house would be spared. The next day I walked by and the front end loader was on top of a tall pile of debris, dust was billowing in large clouds. The house was no more. I was stunned and saddened and wondered how this could have happened.
What will go up on the site of the Big Blue Victorian? Will it be a bland, stark box, built to the edge of the lot, harsh with no trees or greenery? A structure with no beauty or ornament, no front porches or attractive roof lines? One that maximizes the square footage and therefore profit potential of the lot now made available? I am not hopeful.
I should have gone to that meeting. But for me, night meetings are virtually impossible. So where does that leave the concerned citizen? How are we to keep track of these proposed changes to our neighborhood? The letter announcing the zoning board meeting did not mention demolition. I had naively had faith that the zoning board would press for preservation and adaptive, sensitive re-use. In other words the right thing, being sensitive to the neighboring homes. Did the people living across the street and next door go to the meeting? Did they know that one day they would wake up and the blue Victorian they had gazed out their windows at for years would be reduced to a pile of rubble.
How quickly and easily the destruction happened. The machinery made a home seem like a pile of tooth picks. As I stood on the sidewalk, stunned, looking at pile of wood boards that were once a home, dreading what was to take their place, I wondered if anyone else cared. I could not help but lament my lack of attention to that letter about the meeting I couldn't attend. And I could not help but think there must be a better way to inform citizens about these important decisions and to allow us a chance for input in a way that is more straight forward and convenient than the tedious and arcane zoning board meeting.
They tore the Big Blue Victorian down. [where: 74 Green St, Brookline, MA 02446]
One day last week the green construction fence went up around the house. The next day, a front end loader was ripping off huge chunks of the back of the building. I stood on the sidewalk and my jaw dropped. I still held out hope that the ripping would stop and that the front part of the blue house would be spared. The next day I walked by and the front end loader was on top of a tall pile of debris, dust was billowing in large clouds. The house was no more. I was stunned and saddened and wondered how this could have happened.
What will go up on the site of the Big Blue Victorian? Will it be a bland, stark box, built to the edge of the lot, harsh with no trees or greenery? A structure with no beauty or ornament, no front porches or attractive roof lines? One that maximizes the square footage and therefore profit potential of the lot now made available? I am not hopeful.
I should have gone to that meeting. But for me, night meetings are virtually impossible. So where does that leave the concerned citizen? How are we to keep track of these proposed changes to our neighborhood? The letter announcing the zoning board meeting did not mention demolition. I had naively had faith that the zoning board would press for preservation and adaptive, sensitive re-use. In other words the right thing, being sensitive to the neighboring homes. Did the people living across the street and next door go to the meeting? Did they know that one day they would wake up and the blue Victorian they had gazed out their windows at for years would be reduced to a pile of rubble.
How quickly and easily the destruction happened. The machinery made a home seem like a pile of tooth picks. As I stood on the sidewalk, stunned, looking at pile of wood boards that were once a home, dreading what was to take their place, I wondered if anyone else cared. I could not help but lament my lack of attention to that letter about the meeting I couldn't attend. And I could not help but think there must be a better way to inform citizens about these important decisions and to allow us a chance for input in a way that is more straight forward and convenient than the tedious and arcane zoning board meeting.
They tore the Big Blue Victorian down. [where: 74 Green St, Brookline, MA 02446]
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Which Brookline are we Talking about?
I've been doing a lot of head shaking and wondering out loud lately. Wondering how is it possible that seemingly well-intentioned people could just not get it. Take the case of our illustrious Commissioner of Public Works who seems to think the farmer's should be made accountable for the opportunity cost of the parking revenue the town would have got if we could only park cars instead of host a farmer's market! http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Centre+Street,+Brookline,+MA
+02446&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.310334,77.695313&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1. That market adds so much good for the citizens of this town on so many levels it would be worth it if we had to pay the farmer's to come sell us their produce! Then there is the Economic Development Advisory Committee who seem to be under the impression that three sites in Coolidge Corner should, will and must be developed to their absolute maximum income generating potential even if this means building at a scale exceeding current limits by four times. Why bother drafting plans, involving the community in a lengthy process of identifying goals and objectives and having ordinances if at every turn these guidelines and rules are overrun and ignored as they have been time and again? The list is growing longer, the St Aiden's project , the ZBA handing out variances for the asking, lax building code enforcement, and more isolated, bloated one-off development proposals on the drawing board that will bring in a few more bucks but don't have a lot to offer the community in the long run.
Meanwhile, we have yet to articulate a vision for a truly prosperous Brookline in the future. What will assure out continued success as a community is investing in those public amenities that young families look for, like farmer's markets, arts organizations, parks, developments that create usable and attractive public spaces, pedestrian amenities and retail establishments that are a mix of the useful and practical and fun and unusual. All supporting an environmentally responsible, non-auto dependent lifestyle. We have the basic structure already, it would not be difficult, but we could make some major mistakes and ruin our chances.
Brookline is a desirable place and we don't need to go begging to developers to get growth at all costs just to pay for needed services. Where is our self-respect? Developers will tell you that it is not so much regulations that they object to. What is worse, is long drawn out open-ended negotiations, where no one can say what it is they want just what they don't. Change happens and it would be a lot better if we were prepared for it. Instead, we get various committees, working at cross purposes, coming up with proposals which are not part of a long range vision for a vibrant, vital Brookline of the future. We should ask, what will this add to the quality of life of our citizens? They seem to be working on mandates that come from.... where?
How is it that our elected and appointed officials and municipal employees keep getting it wrong? How is that they seem to completely not understand the necessity to nurture and support those things that are critical to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for Brookline's citizens? I have thought about this long and hard and I think it comes down to this. They live in a different Brookline. Their Brookline is a lot more like a typical suburban community. Single-family homes with yards, a garage, a quite street. They drive their car to Coolidge Corner, they don't walk through crowded neighborhoods or try to sleep though yet another student kegger next door. They do not understand that for those of us who live in the denser parts of town, those public amenities like parks, the farmer's market and the senior center are our yards, porches, living rooms and vacations. The public realm is truly that, a shared space that makes occupying a small condominium bearable. If they understood these experiences perhaps they would have understood from the beginning that tearing down a historic Kennedy family place of worship, heritage trees and a reasonably spacious yard and replacing it with a massive towering stack of subsidized housing was too much to ask. We love the same things about Brookline that they do, only for us they take on a much greater significance in our daily experience. Being able to safely cross the street on foot in Coolidge Corner should matter more than moving a few more cars faster.
+02446&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.310334,77.695313&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1. That market adds so much good for the citizens of this town on so many levels it would be worth it if we had to pay the farmer's to come sell us their produce! Then there is the Economic Development Advisory Committee who seem to be under the impression that three sites in Coolidge Corner should, will and must be developed to their absolute maximum income generating potential even if this means building at a scale exceeding current limits by four times. Why bother drafting plans, involving the community in a lengthy process of identifying goals and objectives and having ordinances if at every turn these guidelines and rules are overrun and ignored as they have been time and again? The list is growing longer, the St Aiden's project , the ZBA handing out variances for the asking, lax building code enforcement, and more isolated, bloated one-off development proposals on the drawing board that will bring in a few more bucks but don't have a lot to offer the community in the long run.
Meanwhile, we have yet to articulate a vision for a truly prosperous Brookline in the future. What will assure out continued success as a community is investing in those public amenities that young families look for, like farmer's markets, arts organizations, parks, developments that create usable and attractive public spaces, pedestrian amenities and retail establishments that are a mix of the useful and practical and fun and unusual. All supporting an environmentally responsible, non-auto dependent lifestyle. We have the basic structure already, it would not be difficult, but we could make some major mistakes and ruin our chances.
Brookline is a desirable place and we don't need to go begging to developers to get growth at all costs just to pay for needed services. Where is our self-respect? Developers will tell you that it is not so much regulations that they object to. What is worse, is long drawn out open-ended negotiations, where no one can say what it is they want just what they don't. Change happens and it would be a lot better if we were prepared for it. Instead, we get various committees, working at cross purposes, coming up with proposals which are not part of a long range vision for a vibrant, vital Brookline of the future. We should ask, what will this add to the quality of life of our citizens? They seem to be working on mandates that come from.... where?
How is it that our elected and appointed officials and municipal employees keep getting it wrong? How is that they seem to completely not understand the necessity to nurture and support those things that are critical to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for Brookline's citizens? I have thought about this long and hard and I think it comes down to this. They live in a different Brookline. Their Brookline is a lot more like a typical suburban community. Single-family homes with yards, a garage, a quite street. They drive their car to Coolidge Corner, they don't walk through crowded neighborhoods or try to sleep though yet another student kegger next door. They do not understand that for those of us who live in the denser parts of town, those public amenities like parks, the farmer's market and the senior center are our yards, porches, living rooms and vacations. The public realm is truly that, a shared space that makes occupying a small condominium bearable. If they understood these experiences perhaps they would have understood from the beginning that tearing down a historic Kennedy family place of worship, heritage trees and a reasonably spacious yard and replacing it with a massive towering stack of subsidized housing was too much to ask. We love the same things about Brookline that they do, only for us they take on a much greater significance in our daily experience. Being able to safely cross the street on foot in Coolidge Corner should matter more than moving a few more cars faster.
Monday, July 9, 2007
The Affordable Housing Question
Affordable housing has been in the local news again, raising many questions with few clear answers. There seems to be only a general consensus that there is a lack of affordable housing and that we should try to do something about that. However there is no clear agreement about how to go about this, or what would be considered affordable and for whom. Several approaches have been either pursued or suggested, each with their own potential results both intended and unintended.
The State's answer (40B) was to encourage developers to build affordable housing by granting subsidies and allowing them to ride roughshod over local land use ordinances. Locals often invariably object and with good reason. Inserting out-of-scale, extremely dense buildings into existing neighborhoods is a direct assault on the quality-of-life of a residential area. The local zoning code was developed with preservation of appropriate scale and density in mind. The principle problem with the 40B approach is that it does not allow for the appropriate placement of large scale dense development. Only through vigorous opposition did the neighborhood manage to scale back the St. Aiden's proposal enough to save the historic church structure, the on-site heritage tree, and achieve a density more in line with the neighborhood. Still, this was at a steep cost to town in real dollars and now many are questioning the wisdom of the undertaking in light of the fact that the beneficiaries of the low cost housing will not be middle income working families but rather those who qualify for subsidized housing. The range of housing options therefore has not been broadened, only the quantity of existing options at the top and bottom of the affordability scale augmented. Do we as a community have a moral obligation to provide this housing? Is this the most effective way to spend those funds we do choose to spend towards bridging the affordability gap? While it may achieve some of our goals, I have to think there must be other more creative ways to address this issue, such as subsidizing mortgages for first time buyers, allowing more "infill" within existing housing stock to address the growing need for smaller units for singles and smaller households.
Others (see Leonard Bernstein's letter to the editor in the July 5 Brookline TAB) have suggested that the problem lies with restrictive height and density limits, which he feels should be raised and that by so doing we would see an increase in affordable housing in Brookline. I am afraid this would not at all be the outcome of "upzoning". Mr. Bernstein suggests that the area around Coolidge Corner would be a suitable location for this increased density and that in fact those who have worked to "conserve" his Coolidge Corner neighborhood are to blame for the lack of affordable housing and should be ashamed of ourselves.
The most recent zoning changes proposed in the Coolidge Corner Planning district consisted of changing the zoning for some existing three family dwellings from a multi-family zone to a three-family zone. This was done to remove the financial incentive for tearing down the existing three family building in order to build a bigger more lucrative building. A developer has every incentive to build housing at the top of the market value, to gain the highest rate of return for their investment. The resulting new housing would therefore be more expensive than those units they replaced and the new building would be out of scale and context with its neighbors. It was this incentive for developers to build at the top of the market that the State's Chapter 40B seeks to counteract.
When the three-family zone was coming up for its first vote, Brookline voters became the recipients of a very targeted negative letter campaign that claimed that such a change would cause property taxes to rise. The source of these letters turned out to be a national organization representing small land lords. Perhaps there was an affected property owner who wanted to sell for top dollar.
As Americans we are in fact very conflicted and confused about property rights and development. We often don't think much about it or have a strong opinion until something impacts us personally. Most people do not have any grasp of the processes involved in getting something built and probably assume that there are far more checks and balances, long-term strategizing and thoughtful consideration given to development decisions than there really are. Attempting to achieve a public benefit (in this case affordable housing) within a market driven system requires direct government intervention of some sort. Finding an effective mechanism remains illusive.
The State's answer (40B) was to encourage developers to build affordable housing by granting subsidies and allowing them to ride roughshod over local land use ordinances. Locals often invariably object and with good reason. Inserting out-of-scale, extremely dense buildings into existing neighborhoods is a direct assault on the quality-of-life of a residential area. The local zoning code was developed with preservation of appropriate scale and density in mind. The principle problem with the 40B approach is that it does not allow for the appropriate placement of large scale dense development. Only through vigorous opposition did the neighborhood manage to scale back the St. Aiden's proposal enough to save the historic church structure, the on-site heritage tree, and achieve a density more in line with the neighborhood. Still, this was at a steep cost to town in real dollars and now many are questioning the wisdom of the undertaking in light of the fact that the beneficiaries of the low cost housing will not be middle income working families but rather those who qualify for subsidized housing. The range of housing options therefore has not been broadened, only the quantity of existing options at the top and bottom of the affordability scale augmented. Do we as a community have a moral obligation to provide this housing? Is this the most effective way to spend those funds we do choose to spend towards bridging the affordability gap? While it may achieve some of our goals, I have to think there must be other more creative ways to address this issue, such as subsidizing mortgages for first time buyers, allowing more "infill" within existing housing stock to address the growing need for smaller units for singles and smaller households.
Others (see Leonard Bernstein's letter to the editor in the July 5 Brookline TAB) have suggested that the problem lies with restrictive height and density limits, which he feels should be raised and that by so doing we would see an increase in affordable housing in Brookline. I am afraid this would not at all be the outcome of "upzoning". Mr. Bernstein suggests that the area around Coolidge Corner would be a suitable location for this increased density and that in fact those who have worked to "conserve" his Coolidge Corner neighborhood are to blame for the lack of affordable housing and should be ashamed of ourselves.
The most recent zoning changes proposed in the Coolidge Corner Planning district consisted of changing the zoning for some existing three family dwellings from a multi-family zone to a three-family zone. This was done to remove the financial incentive for tearing down the existing three family building in order to build a bigger more lucrative building. A developer has every incentive to build housing at the top of the market value, to gain the highest rate of return for their investment. The resulting new housing would therefore be more expensive than those units they replaced and the new building would be out of scale and context with its neighbors. It was this incentive for developers to build at the top of the market that the State's Chapter 40B seeks to counteract.
When the three-family zone was coming up for its first vote, Brookline voters became the recipients of a very targeted negative letter campaign that claimed that such a change would cause property taxes to rise. The source of these letters turned out to be a national organization representing small land lords. Perhaps there was an affected property owner who wanted to sell for top dollar.
As Americans we are in fact very conflicted and confused about property rights and development. We often don't think much about it or have a strong opinion until something impacts us personally. Most people do not have any grasp of the processes involved in getting something built and probably assume that there are far more checks and balances, long-term strategizing and thoughtful consideration given to development decisions than there really are. Attempting to achieve a public benefit (in this case affordable housing) within a market driven system requires direct government intervention of some sort. Finding an effective mechanism remains illusive.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Brookline Today
I've just finished reading Our Brookline Our Stories, the book put together by the Council on Aging for the Brookline 300 celebration in 2005 (was it really two years ago already?). What really stands out is how choosing Brookline as a home had a profound influence on the arc and fulfillment of people's lives. While it may not be true of other places to the same degree, Brookline's shared strengths and sense of community have supported and aided many individuals, helping them achieve personal goals and nurturing dreams. Brookline provides a complex web of interweaving supports, from the uplifting physical environment to the availability of intellectual stimulation and thereby continues to draw those who value these things. Thus creating a self-perpetuating cycle that brings continuity and commitment to our town. What everyone who chooses to invest their residential dollars here understands is we are buying more that the four walls of our home, we are buying a place within a special community.
And yet I also am left to wonder about the difficulties that new generations face as they chose to make Brookline home. Many of the families portrayed in the book seemed to be decidedly middle class, making a go of things in Brookline through hard work and determination. They were able to buy a house and prospered by staying put. They were invested in Brookline because they were building a life here and so were their neighbors and local business owners. They all knew each other and this built trust and a feeling of safety. Mobility and rootlessness are features of modern life and threaten to erode communities around the globe. Will those who can buy the best simply go elsewhere rather than staying put and working through the sometimes messy business of local governance? Does the value of a strong and supportive community mean the same thing to them? The vast income divide opening up in our world today widens the culture gap and makes the prospects of a truly harmonious diverse community more fraught with challenges. The haves demand luxuries and top of the line amenities, hiring out all domestic duties and living mobile information intensive lives, while the have nots struggle to make do with aging housing , limited access to technology and sky-rocketing transportation costs. Brookline is unique in its attempt to embrace a diverse population. As several stories in the Our Brookline book told, this was not always the case. While our values have banished discrimination, economic divides erect barriers just as divisive. Can we succeed in building a community where all of our residents are valued and given equal voice?
Involvement in public affairs is encouraged and valued in Brookline, but who are those that govern? I feel gratitude and respect for those that serve the town, and we are the beneficiaries of a great deal of talent and expertise given selflessly. But I also wonder how truly welcoming and accessible our political institutions are for those who are less familiar with its inner workings. I was dismayed at the dismal voter turnout for our last local election. In my precinct, near Coolidge Corner, which includes many condominiums and apartments, the turnout was around 5 % of registered voters. Are we really hearing from those living with less in Brookline? What impact does the more fluid rental population have on our neighborhoods? If individuals care so little for the future of their town that they can't be bothered to vote, will they be involved in other ways? Perhaps they simply believe things are going well enough that they don't need to pay attention, but apathy allows at best complacency and at worse corruption and just plain mismanagement.
And yet I also am left to wonder about the difficulties that new generations face as they chose to make Brookline home. Many of the families portrayed in the book seemed to be decidedly middle class, making a go of things in Brookline through hard work and determination. They were able to buy a house and prospered by staying put. They were invested in Brookline because they were building a life here and so were their neighbors and local business owners. They all knew each other and this built trust and a feeling of safety. Mobility and rootlessness are features of modern life and threaten to erode communities around the globe. Will those who can buy the best simply go elsewhere rather than staying put and working through the sometimes messy business of local governance? Does the value of a strong and supportive community mean the same thing to them? The vast income divide opening up in our world today widens the culture gap and makes the prospects of a truly harmonious diverse community more fraught with challenges. The haves demand luxuries and top of the line amenities, hiring out all domestic duties and living mobile information intensive lives, while the have nots struggle to make do with aging housing , limited access to technology and sky-rocketing transportation costs. Brookline is unique in its attempt to embrace a diverse population. As several stories in the Our Brookline book told, this was not always the case. While our values have banished discrimination, economic divides erect barriers just as divisive. Can we succeed in building a community where all of our residents are valued and given equal voice?
Involvement in public affairs is encouraged and valued in Brookline, but who are those that govern? I feel gratitude and respect for those that serve the town, and we are the beneficiaries of a great deal of talent and expertise given selflessly. But I also wonder how truly welcoming and accessible our political institutions are for those who are less familiar with its inner workings. I was dismayed at the dismal voter turnout for our last local election. In my precinct, near Coolidge Corner, which includes many condominiums and apartments, the turnout was around 5 % of registered voters. Are we really hearing from those living with less in Brookline? What impact does the more fluid rental population have on our neighborhoods? If individuals care so little for the future of their town that they can't be bothered to vote, will they be involved in other ways? Perhaps they simply believe things are going well enough that they don't need to pay attention, but apathy allows at best complacency and at worse corruption and just plain mismanagement.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The Comfort (and Necessity) of Long Term Thinking
I often find it comforting to contemplate change over a long arching span of time. This seems to have the effect of smoothing out the rough bits. It helps me cultivate patience too, which is something one needs in abundance when trying to affect change to something like the built environment where change happens at a seemingly glacial pace.
I think this is why I love learning about Brookline's history. Great change has occurred in successive waves, brought about by bold visions, stirring endeavors and accidents of fate. Sometimes the changes brought ugliness and new problems, other times they achieved their intended purpose for renewal. As things were happening there were moments of panic and despair, courage and hope, failure and great success, yet all these individual stories blend to yield a picture of a community of people working together, whose lives were touched by a shared sense of place. Understanding all the human endeavor and natural forces that have brought us to the present makes us take very seriously our task as temporary stewards and admonishes us to think long term in our decision-making.
We are finally hearing about the logic of long term thinking for business. Couched in the profit motive and self-interest the argument can still be made that long term success can only be had with strategies that eschew exploitation of both natural and human resources and embrace self-sustaining and nurturing practices. It seems so obvious, and yet these principles, for decades have been the polar opposites of many business decision-making protocol. It has finally become obvious to the many, that we can no longer use up and abuse without regard for the consequences. Of course there have been many among us who have been saying this for many decades, who are now cautiously optimistic about this seismic shift in thinking. The same could be said for government policies, which in the recent past have sadly seemed to be more about getting re-elected next fall than making wise long-term policy. But I get beyond my point.
It's a simple tool really. When your car breaks down, or your plumbing explodes and the phone company's automated voice answering menu doesn't have an option that fits your call and you are about to pull your hair out, take a moment to think about what your neighborhood might be like in 10, 20 or even 50 years. And don't be afraid to dream big, think about all the things that make it a nice place or would make it even nicer. Will you, or those who are still here, even remember this bad day? Those folks back in 1898 had a great many obstacles to overcome too and yet they built beautiful homes and parks that we are still admiring today. When you are contemplating yourself as a part of this human community that inhabits this place we call Brookline gather courage from all those who have walked here before you and will walk here after you.
This Memorial Day there will be a guided tour of our own Old Burying Ground on Walnut St, from 12 to 2 pm. This is a chance to contemplate just how long that span of time is back to the days the first European settlers came to Brookline, and how much things have changed. Others find a similar comfort in contemplating geologic time or our place (speck) in the vast Universe. But for me, I have a hard time really connecting to those more abstract concepts and it seems to take that shared connection to our particular place on the planet to help me live in the broader continuum of time.
I think this is why I love learning about Brookline's history. Great change has occurred in successive waves, brought about by bold visions, stirring endeavors and accidents of fate. Sometimes the changes brought ugliness and new problems, other times they achieved their intended purpose for renewal. As things were happening there were moments of panic and despair, courage and hope, failure and great success, yet all these individual stories blend to yield a picture of a community of people working together, whose lives were touched by a shared sense of place. Understanding all the human endeavor and natural forces that have brought us to the present makes us take very seriously our task as temporary stewards and admonishes us to think long term in our decision-making.
We are finally hearing about the logic of long term thinking for business. Couched in the profit motive and self-interest the argument can still be made that long term success can only be had with strategies that eschew exploitation of both natural and human resources and embrace self-sustaining and nurturing practices. It seems so obvious, and yet these principles, for decades have been the polar opposites of many business decision-making protocol. It has finally become obvious to the many, that we can no longer use up and abuse without regard for the consequences. Of course there have been many among us who have been saying this for many decades, who are now cautiously optimistic about this seismic shift in thinking. The same could be said for government policies, which in the recent past have sadly seemed to be more about getting re-elected next fall than making wise long-term policy. But I get beyond my point.
It's a simple tool really. When your car breaks down, or your plumbing explodes and the phone company's automated voice answering menu doesn't have an option that fits your call and you are about to pull your hair out, take a moment to think about what your neighborhood might be like in 10, 20 or even 50 years. And don't be afraid to dream big, think about all the things that make it a nice place or would make it even nicer. Will you, or those who are still here, even remember this bad day? Those folks back in 1898 had a great many obstacles to overcome too and yet they built beautiful homes and parks that we are still admiring today. When you are contemplating yourself as a part of this human community that inhabits this place we call Brookline gather courage from all those who have walked here before you and will walk here after you.
This Memorial Day there will be a guided tour of our own Old Burying Ground on Walnut St, from 12 to 2 pm. This is a chance to contemplate just how long that span of time is back to the days the first European settlers came to Brookline, and how much things have changed. Others find a similar comfort in contemplating geologic time or our place (speck) in the vast Universe. But for me, I have a hard time really connecting to those more abstract concepts and it seems to take that shared connection to our particular place on the planet to help me live in the broader continuum of time.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Brookline's T.O.D. perfect for Sustainability
Through the good fortunes of history North Brookline has a land development pattern that in contemporary planning parlance would be touted as Transit Oriented Development. It was the simple fact that much of our building occurred before the 1920's and the dominance of the automobile that dictated a pattern of concentrated development accessible by foot and rapid transit. The idea of T.O.D. today is to build nodes of density within easy walking distance of transit stops in order to minimize our reliance on the automobile. Ideally these nodes would include a variety of land use types to add further trip synergies, such as offices, convenience stores, frequently used services etc. These are not new ideas, but in the face of the real and pressing need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to retool our domestic living arrangements for changing demographics, Brookline stands out as an example of a community with much of the basic structure in place for moving forward towards the sustainable community of the future.
Urban planners around the world are struggling to craft municipal codes that would allow builders to retrofit our sprawling, land and resource wasting suburban environments into nodes of mixed-use density. Most municipal zoning ordinances would not allow traditional town centers or denser transit oriented nodes to be built today. These codes focused on separation of land uses, thus prohibiting the mix of uses that foster street life. Large lots and setbacks set buildings far apart, using up vast tracks of land and in a commercial setting making access via automobile the only option. Concentrating development near transit has the added advantage of leaving valuable open lands for preservation or farming, uses that benefit the public to a much greater extent than do 5 acre private lawns or asphalt parking lots. The planning and zoning tools of the past are primitive and left us with minimal protections, leaving communities vulnerable to the results of short term financial decision making, with little or no regard for context, long term use or the resulting public spaces. In addition to the wholesale reworking of our antiquated zoning codes, planners are becoming aware of the need to address the nuances of designing the public spaces, or as the title of one of my favorite books puts it "The Spaces between Buildings", which are in fact impacted by every design detail of both the adjacent buildings and the other streetscape elements.
A reawakened public and the municipal officials that represent them are coming to understand that they must speak up and ask for the kind of quality development that will be an asset to their community for the long term. Additional requirements are not necessarily a negative for developers. What is a negative is ambiguity. When developers make proposals that the community finds unsatisfactory, the community may try to stall and are reluctant to give their approval, but if they cannot clearly state their objections or preferences everyone is frustrated. Clarity, foreknowledge of expectations and even handed application to all proposals would be welcome by developers. We deserve quality development that makes sense for the long term goals of our community and we have a right to ask for them.
Urban planners around the world are struggling to craft municipal codes that would allow builders to retrofit our sprawling, land and resource wasting suburban environments into nodes of mixed-use density. Most municipal zoning ordinances would not allow traditional town centers or denser transit oriented nodes to be built today. These codes focused on separation of land uses, thus prohibiting the mix of uses that foster street life. Large lots and setbacks set buildings far apart, using up vast tracks of land and in a commercial setting making access via automobile the only option. Concentrating development near transit has the added advantage of leaving valuable open lands for preservation or farming, uses that benefit the public to a much greater extent than do 5 acre private lawns or asphalt parking lots. The planning and zoning tools of the past are primitive and left us with minimal protections, leaving communities vulnerable to the results of short term financial decision making, with little or no regard for context, long term use or the resulting public spaces. In addition to the wholesale reworking of our antiquated zoning codes, planners are becoming aware of the need to address the nuances of designing the public spaces, or as the title of one of my favorite books puts it "The Spaces between Buildings", which are in fact impacted by every design detail of both the adjacent buildings and the other streetscape elements.
A reawakened public and the municipal officials that represent them are coming to understand that they must speak up and ask for the kind of quality development that will be an asset to their community for the long term. Additional requirements are not necessarily a negative for developers. What is a negative is ambiguity. When developers make proposals that the community finds unsatisfactory, the community may try to stall and are reluctant to give their approval, but if they cannot clearly state their objections or preferences everyone is frustrated. Clarity, foreknowledge of expectations and even handed application to all proposals would be welcome by developers. We deserve quality development that makes sense for the long term goals of our community and we have a right to ask for them.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Further Comments on the Proposed Robotic Parking Structure
I appreciate that Mr. Brown took the time to read and respond to my previous guest column in the TAB about his proposed robotic parking garage for Coolidge Corner. Discussion and dialogue are always good things. However, his response indicates that he has fundamentally misunderstood the reasons for my objection to the deck itself and most importantly to its proposed location.
The site in question, an oddly configured piece of property behind the Coolidge Corner Theater is valuable, not because of what it is now, but because of its location and what it could become. Strategically linked to Beacon and Harvard Streets with pedestrian passageways, this piece of land and the adjoining existing parking area could become part of a pedestrian friendly mixed-use retail and public gathering place, something the Coolidge Corner District Planning Council has clearly identified as a priority. I believe the future vitality of Coolidge Corner is dependent upon supporting, expanding and enabling its best features, namely our unique local businesses and relaxing pedestrian environment. These features will draw people from far and near who are seeking authenticity and interaction in an increasingly mediated and isolated world. Customers need to be able to get to the businesses, this is what is axiomatic, not that they must drive an automobile and park it directly in front (or back) of their destination. We need to get creative in looking at how to better support all forms of transportation to Coolidge Corner.
The site now may be a bleak parking area at the back of a building, hardly desirable, as Mr. Brown points out. But joined with the adjacent lot, and through careful design, judicious plantings, pedestrian amenities and linkages and careful control of service vehicles, a uniquely compelling place could be created. Even if the site remains a service drive that is simply screened on the edge of the civic space it is still not an appropriate location for the large imposing deck. Bringing heavy vehicle traffic into this space is not compatible with a public gathering space, and as I stated in my original column there are some serious traffic flow consequences with this location as well. Far from being anti-progress as Mr. Brown suggests, those with an alternative vision are looking towards the future, one that is supportive of community life and in the long term responsive to the challenges of climate change.
For the immediate future, we have existing parking alternatives that have not been fully utilized. As Mr. Brown notes, I am lucky enough to be able to walk to Coolidge Corner from my home, a distance of a little over ¼ of a mile. If he can acknowledge the convenience of this, how is it then that parking at the Webster Street hotel and walking across the street, is too much of a hassle for everyone else? The Transportation Solutions study told us, through empirical methods, not anecdotal stories, that we have additional parking capacity still to use in Coolidge Corner, and that better information and management would maximize its use. While traffic and parking are continuing challenges, they require comprehensive technical study and creative solutions that include both management, and policy solutions as well as possible capacity expansions.
There are many questions to consider about the technology of the robotic parking garage as well. Just a few of them are, is it suitable for short term parking, which is what we need in Coolidge Corner? Are they noisy? How reliable are they? All the decks I have seen are at least 80 ft. tall. Can they be built shorter? In our haste to solve a perceived parking problem, let us hope we do not act in a way that will disappoint the future generations of Brookliner's.
The site in question, an oddly configured piece of property behind the Coolidge Corner Theater is valuable, not because of what it is now, but because of its location and what it could become. Strategically linked to Beacon and Harvard Streets with pedestrian passageways, this piece of land and the adjoining existing parking area could become part of a pedestrian friendly mixed-use retail and public gathering place, something the Coolidge Corner District Planning Council has clearly identified as a priority. I believe the future vitality of Coolidge Corner is dependent upon supporting, expanding and enabling its best features, namely our unique local businesses and relaxing pedestrian environment. These features will draw people from far and near who are seeking authenticity and interaction in an increasingly mediated and isolated world. Customers need to be able to get to the businesses, this is what is axiomatic, not that they must drive an automobile and park it directly in front (or back) of their destination. We need to get creative in looking at how to better support all forms of transportation to Coolidge Corner.
The site now may be a bleak parking area at the back of a building, hardly desirable, as Mr. Brown points out. But joined with the adjacent lot, and through careful design, judicious plantings, pedestrian amenities and linkages and careful control of service vehicles, a uniquely compelling place could be created. Even if the site remains a service drive that is simply screened on the edge of the civic space it is still not an appropriate location for the large imposing deck. Bringing heavy vehicle traffic into this space is not compatible with a public gathering space, and as I stated in my original column there are some serious traffic flow consequences with this location as well. Far from being anti-progress as Mr. Brown suggests, those with an alternative vision are looking towards the future, one that is supportive of community life and in the long term responsive to the challenges of climate change.
For the immediate future, we have existing parking alternatives that have not been fully utilized. As Mr. Brown notes, I am lucky enough to be able to walk to Coolidge Corner from my home, a distance of a little over ¼ of a mile. If he can acknowledge the convenience of this, how is it then that parking at the Webster Street hotel and walking across the street, is too much of a hassle for everyone else? The Transportation Solutions study told us, through empirical methods, not anecdotal stories, that we have additional parking capacity still to use in Coolidge Corner, and that better information and management would maximize its use. While traffic and parking are continuing challenges, they require comprehensive technical study and creative solutions that include both management, and policy solutions as well as possible capacity expansions.
There are many questions to consider about the technology of the robotic parking garage as well. Just a few of them are, is it suitable for short term parking, which is what we need in Coolidge Corner? Are they noisy? How reliable are they? All the decks I have seen are at least 80 ft. tall. Can they be built shorter? In our haste to solve a perceived parking problem, let us hope we do not act in a way that will disappoint the future generations of Brookliner's.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Increasing SUV's Excise Tax - Article #16
Town meeting member Andrew Fischer has put forward Town Meeting Article #16, which calls for a doubling in the excise tax rate for Sport Utility Vehicles and Light Trucks. While I doubt that the financial burden resulting from this change will cause many people to change what they drive, I do agree with the principle behind the proposal. The fact that we have whole classes of vehicles on the road today which continue to be manufactured and sold that are exempt from Federal Clean Air Fuel Efficiency standards is scandalous. As the dire consequences of our binge on cheap, government subsidized fossil fuel consumption becomes ever nearer and more apparent the folly of this policy lapse looks more and more like the pathetic act of denial that it is.
There is not much we can do on the local level to try to correct this policy gap. We can't ban these vehicles from our roadways, or set our own fuel efficiency standards. Instead, by focusing on increasing the taxation on vehicles that are both heavier and more polluting than passenger cars, we are identifying the additional costs to the environment, infrastructure and human health that these vehicles cause and passing them on to the operator of the vehicle. Indeed the basic problem with our current methods of assigning values to economic productivity and worth is that the market fails to account for long term costs and the general costs often born by society at large. Individuals use up and profit from consuming resources that in fact belong to everyone. Therefore, if these vehicles truly cost more than other vehicles in terms of wear and tear on our infrastructure, air quality degradation, climate change acceleration, etc. then those that consume these additional resources should compensate the owners of those resources, the public.
Of course the real goal of these types of pricing mechanisms is not to collect money, but rather to use the pocket book to motivate a change in behavior. I don't think the change effected by this article will be great enough to cause a mass abandonment of SUV's , but it is nonetheless significant in the message it sends. I have heard SUV owners say that they are being unfairly punished, because they have very good reasons (such as a large family) why they have to drive such a vehicle. Of course the many generations of families who grew up just fine without an SUV might beg to differ on this point. I am sure we will see more and more economic incentives of this kind as we struggle to adapt and change to a more durable and sustainable economy. Congestion pricing for instance, has shown itself to be very effective at reducing peak hour congestion. Again the ultimate goal is not to simply force people to buy their right to pollute but rather to put a truer cost on an activity and ultimately to stimulate innovation and behavioral shifts.
This proposal is timely and targeted and deserves our support.
There is not much we can do on the local level to try to correct this policy gap. We can't ban these vehicles from our roadways, or set our own fuel efficiency standards. Instead, by focusing on increasing the taxation on vehicles that are both heavier and more polluting than passenger cars, we are identifying the additional costs to the environment, infrastructure and human health that these vehicles cause and passing them on to the operator of the vehicle. Indeed the basic problem with our current methods of assigning values to economic productivity and worth is that the market fails to account for long term costs and the general costs often born by society at large. Individuals use up and profit from consuming resources that in fact belong to everyone. Therefore, if these vehicles truly cost more than other vehicles in terms of wear and tear on our infrastructure, air quality degradation, climate change acceleration, etc. then those that consume these additional resources should compensate the owners of those resources, the public.
Of course the real goal of these types of pricing mechanisms is not to collect money, but rather to use the pocket book to motivate a change in behavior. I don't think the change effected by this article will be great enough to cause a mass abandonment of SUV's , but it is nonetheless significant in the message it sends. I have heard SUV owners say that they are being unfairly punished, because they have very good reasons (such as a large family) why they have to drive such a vehicle. Of course the many generations of families who grew up just fine without an SUV might beg to differ on this point. I am sure we will see more and more economic incentives of this kind as we struggle to adapt and change to a more durable and sustainable economy. Congestion pricing for instance, has shown itself to be very effective at reducing peak hour congestion. Again the ultimate goal is not to simply force people to buy their right to pollute but rather to put a truer cost on an activity and ultimately to stimulate innovation and behavioral shifts.
This proposal is timely and targeted and deserves our support.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Public Participation: Making it Work
When I first moved to Brookline (1988), long time Boston area residents kept telling me things like "people in Brookline are so active in their local politics", or "they are so involved". I found this both encouraging and a bit intimidating. On the plus side, it meant that people cared about the place that they lived, enough to speak out and work at protecting or improving it. What intimidated me was the thought of long held political alliances and networks, power structures that were deep and too secretive to penetrate, leaving little room for the new comer to get involved.
Before coming to Brookline, I had worked as a land use planner in Vermont, where the Town Meeting truly is a small group of citizens debating issues grand and petty. While we strive for this level of intimate democracy, we have our unique substitute form of it, which I for one support. For the most part, I have found that there is a very high level of local involvement and concern in Brookline and yet, as the process of planning for the future of Coolidge Corner has revealed, it could be a whole lot better.
A great deal of the problem is the process itself. We have laws and institutions set up that dictate how and when notifications get posted and meetings get held, all to ensure that the public knows that in this case, decisions are being made about the future of development in Coolidge Corner. In an attempt to capture a diversity of viewpoints while developing policies, a committee was formed with representatives of various constituent groups, such as business owners, the GreenSpace Alliance and neighborhood representatives. Working with town planning staff, the group studied existing conditions and attempted to forecast future scenarios. Consultants were hired for special technical analyses, where needed. Meetings were held, some of them public. All of this is as it should be I suppose, but what seems to have happened is you end up with a few strong voices leading the discussion in a certain direction, with the conclusions already formulated. Input, from the public and the consultants both, is accepted and listened to, but may or may not be acted upon.
A draft plan is written. It is long. It is filled with technical jargon. Citizens are told about the plan and asked to submit comments. I am a professional urban planner, and it was an effort for me to read this plan and interpolate what the implications of its mandates were for Coolidge Corner in the coming decades. I can't imagine too many busy people, no matter how dedicated, concerned or intelligent, taking the time to do this unless they perceive some threat to their personal situation. Some do, and they write comments or attend the public meeting and have their say, and if their experience was like mine, they may be asking themselves if they were heard at all or if it made any difference that they came. Because the public involvement is in fulfillment of a requirement of the process, it occurs to you that this was its purpose.
I do not mean to criticize the work of either the planning staff of the Town of Brookline or the dedicated citizens who have made the sacrifice to work so diligently to develop the Coolidge Corner District Plan. They have done a remarkable job given the constraints of time and staffing they have to work with, and they did not create the process I am commenting on, so please do not think I don't appreciate your service to our community.
Nonetheless, if you asked people on the street if they were concerned about the future of Coolidge Corner, I am sure a majority of them would say yes. Yet, they may not even know about the process underway or what the possible impacts of a change to form-based zoning (one of the proposals in the draft plan) might mean to their neighborhoods. Perhaps they don't really need to, until these issues come before town meeting, but I can't help but feel we are missing a great opportunity to engage a diversity of talented individuals, whose combined insights might lead us to unexpected and delightful new solutions.
We witnessed another potential pitfall of this lack of engagement last fall, when a last minute scare letter went out to homeowners telling them false hoods about the dire consequences to the town tax base and their property values of a proposed zoning change coming before town meeting. Turns out the group had their own special interests at heart, but their timing made an informed discussion impossible, and their letter achieved its goal of casting doubt on the proposed zoning change.
There are examples from around the country of communities who have overcome apathy and time constraints to successfully harness citizen participation in the planning process. It can require substantial resources and additional staff, such as in the case of holding "design charettes" such as what is being done in New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath. But perhaps in our case it does not need to be such an intensive effort. Technology being what it is these days, I can imagine a website that could display different development scenarios that people could vote their preferences for. What about the youth of our community? How about an essay contest about Brookline in the future, or a video or short story submissions website about characters and activities in the Coolidge Corner of their dreams? Most of those ideas generated will of course be impractical or illogical, etc. etc. but remember that all of the great creations on the planet started out as a dream. We should find ways to engage people's creativity.
On a less ambitious course, a little more effort could be made to simplify and "translate" the draft plan proposals into examples that people could easily relate to, and comments could be solicited via a website, making it easier to participate, rather than requiring citizens to read a 70 page document and then attend an evening meeting or compose a formal letter, in order to have input.
A great deal more dialogue is needed. It is not enough to say "we want to change the parking requirement to this, what do you think". There are always opportunity costs for choosing one course of action over another. Technology could be deployed here as well, with a blog on the town website posting proposals with explanations, pros and cons and asking for thoughts.
Yes, we are lucky to have so many concerned participants in town government, but we have so much talent in this town, wouldn't it be great to find a way to tap just a little bit more of it when it comes to creating the Brookline of tomorrow?
Before coming to Brookline, I had worked as a land use planner in Vermont, where the Town Meeting truly is a small group of citizens debating issues grand and petty. While we strive for this level of intimate democracy, we have our unique substitute form of it, which I for one support. For the most part, I have found that there is a very high level of local involvement and concern in Brookline and yet, as the process of planning for the future of Coolidge Corner has revealed, it could be a whole lot better.
A great deal of the problem is the process itself. We have laws and institutions set up that dictate how and when notifications get posted and meetings get held, all to ensure that the public knows that in this case, decisions are being made about the future of development in Coolidge Corner. In an attempt to capture a diversity of viewpoints while developing policies, a committee was formed with representatives of various constituent groups, such as business owners, the GreenSpace Alliance and neighborhood representatives. Working with town planning staff, the group studied existing conditions and attempted to forecast future scenarios. Consultants were hired for special technical analyses, where needed. Meetings were held, some of them public. All of this is as it should be I suppose, but what seems to have happened is you end up with a few strong voices leading the discussion in a certain direction, with the conclusions already formulated. Input, from the public and the consultants both, is accepted and listened to, but may or may not be acted upon.
A draft plan is written. It is long. It is filled with technical jargon. Citizens are told about the plan and asked to submit comments. I am a professional urban planner, and it was an effort for me to read this plan and interpolate what the implications of its mandates were for Coolidge Corner in the coming decades. I can't imagine too many busy people, no matter how dedicated, concerned or intelligent, taking the time to do this unless they perceive some threat to their personal situation. Some do, and they write comments or attend the public meeting and have their say, and if their experience was like mine, they may be asking themselves if they were heard at all or if it made any difference that they came. Because the public involvement is in fulfillment of a requirement of the process, it occurs to you that this was its purpose.
I do not mean to criticize the work of either the planning staff of the Town of Brookline or the dedicated citizens who have made the sacrifice to work so diligently to develop the Coolidge Corner District Plan. They have done a remarkable job given the constraints of time and staffing they have to work with, and they did not create the process I am commenting on, so please do not think I don't appreciate your service to our community.
Nonetheless, if you asked people on the street if they were concerned about the future of Coolidge Corner, I am sure a majority of them would say yes. Yet, they may not even know about the process underway or what the possible impacts of a change to form-based zoning (one of the proposals in the draft plan) might mean to their neighborhoods. Perhaps they don't really need to, until these issues come before town meeting, but I can't help but feel we are missing a great opportunity to engage a diversity of talented individuals, whose combined insights might lead us to unexpected and delightful new solutions.
We witnessed another potential pitfall of this lack of engagement last fall, when a last minute scare letter went out to homeowners telling them false hoods about the dire consequences to the town tax base and their property values of a proposed zoning change coming before town meeting. Turns out the group had their own special interests at heart, but their timing made an informed discussion impossible, and their letter achieved its goal of casting doubt on the proposed zoning change.
There are examples from around the country of communities who have overcome apathy and time constraints to successfully harness citizen participation in the planning process. It can require substantial resources and additional staff, such as in the case of holding "design charettes" such as what is being done in New Orleans in Katrina's aftermath. But perhaps in our case it does not need to be such an intensive effort. Technology being what it is these days, I can imagine a website that could display different development scenarios that people could vote their preferences for. What about the youth of our community? How about an essay contest about Brookline in the future, or a video or short story submissions website about characters and activities in the Coolidge Corner of their dreams? Most of those ideas generated will of course be impractical or illogical, etc. etc. but remember that all of the great creations on the planet started out as a dream. We should find ways to engage people's creativity.
On a less ambitious course, a little more effort could be made to simplify and "translate" the draft plan proposals into examples that people could easily relate to, and comments could be solicited via a website, making it easier to participate, rather than requiring citizens to read a 70 page document and then attend an evening meeting or compose a formal letter, in order to have input.
A great deal more dialogue is needed. It is not enough to say "we want to change the parking requirement to this, what do you think". There are always opportunity costs for choosing one course of action over another. Technology could be deployed here as well, with a blog on the town website posting proposals with explanations, pros and cons and asking for thoughts.
Yes, we are lucky to have so many concerned participants in town government, but we have so much talent in this town, wouldn't it be great to find a way to tap just a little bit more of it when it comes to creating the Brookline of tomorrow?
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Harold Brown's Proposed Robotic Parking
Mr. Brown's proposal for a robotic parking garage in Coolidge Corner is no doubt well intentioned and generous. An effort to minimize it's visual impact has obviously been made by "tucking" it behind the Coolidge Corner Theater. The whole idea of going vertical by deploying the robotic parking technology attempts to accommodate many vehicles without devoting a lot of land area to it, in a sense attempting to let us have our cake and eat it too. If we replace the existing surface parking with vertical parking, we are in effect gaining some land area that could be put to much better use. These efforts reveal Mr. Brown's understanding of the concerns and issues inherent in providing increased parking in Coolidge Corner.
Unfortunately, despite these laudable goals and the application of advanced technology, the resulting negative impacts of going forward with this proposal will far outweigh the potential gains. No matter how small and hidden we try to make a parking garage we are still choosing to give over a key part of our public realm to automobiles, rather than to people, or new businesses and the impacts of this choice go far beyond the site of the garage. The planning process is still underway that seeks to identify the development goals for the town owned land that is currently the Centre Street parking lot. We must take the time to look at the overall site and how it's development fits in with the future we wish to see for Coolidge Corner. It would be premature to decide now to build just one little piece of the puzzle and it would lock us into a scenario from which there would be no escape.
On a very basic level, there are serious traffic impacts if the robotic structure's 130 spaces were built in addition to the existing parking. An additional 130 parking spaces and all the vehicle trips in and out of them. Imagine the driveway at the Centre Street parking lot with twice as many vehicles traveling in and out. The driveway is too close to the Beacon Street intersection and it would become extremely difficult to turn left out of the lot. Then there is the left turn from Beacon to Centre Street, already a nightmare, now double the number of people trying to make that turn. Now imagine you are trying to walk down Centre Street, but you have to wade through all those cars driven by desperate people trying to get out. Then there is the question of where would the cars line up as they wait to get into the robotic deck? With all those additional cars, right next to all those occupied buildings, we have to ask ourselves, do we really want to be concentrating all those harmful emissions here? Functionally there are some really serious problems, but these are not the only or even the most important reasons why the structure should not be built.
I am aware that many are convinced that we need more parking in Coolidge Corner. Part of this perception is tied into the issue of long term parking needs for employees working at Coolidge Corner businesses. This is an issue that is being addressed separately, and employee parking would not be located here. The recent parking study performed by Traffic Solutions concluded that rather than a shortage of parking spaces, what is really happening is we are falling short in terms of utilizing the parking we do have. The study notes that regulations are not being fully enforced that would improve parking turnover, thereby making more spaces available for patrons. Additionally, available parking often goes unused due to lack of driver knowledge. People go to look for parking at the few places they are familiar with and don't bother to find out about other spaces that go unused. Better signage and public education could go a long way to address this knowledge gap.
There is disagreement about parking availability, and people's beliefs are based on perceptions. What is really at the heart of this debate are expectations. If everyone defines available parking as being able to drive and park right in front of your destination, then there is a lack of parking. What people don't realize is that fulfilling this expectation implies a trade-off. If we choose to make providing ultra-convenient parking our priority, we are precluding other uses for the land and making the public realm in that central location more hostile to the pedestrian. It's a question of location.
If we build this structure on our one remaining prime piece of land in Coolidge Corner, we will not be encouraging alternative transportation or the use of the alternative parking lots we already have. If we have learned anything about the automobile and cities it is that places that cater exclusively to cars are not very nice places to walk through or near. If we want a commercial core that has a lively street life, one that is pleasant to stroll through and to window shop, to sit on a bench, or to spend time in our hoped for new civic space, it cannot be successful if all those people have to cross many busy driveways, or walk through parking lots or sit next to a parking garage.
If we can park a block away and walk, or better yet take the T, walk or ride a bike, we can have a commercial core that we will want to visit and spend time in. There is a self-fulfilling aspect to building parking at such a central location. If that parking space is there, people will drive, when they could perhaps have chosen not to drive. With streetscape amenities, vital ground floor retail and civic space, the area becomes one that is nurturing to relaxation and community life. This is what we would be giving up. What we want is to create is a commercial area that is so compelling people will want to come here even if they can't park in front of the store. If convenient parking were all that we had to offer, the customer might as well go to the mall. Shopping has become more than just shopping in our culture, people are looking for an experience and genuine human interaction, along with unique retail offerings. We are poised to provide this. People will come from further away because it will be inviting. Think about the vast number of people with access to the MBTA who are potential new customers.
Lowering our parking expectations is a long term proposition with great potential benefits besides just improved land use. There are the environmental benefits from people switching to the T to get here. New employees will self-select from the pool of those who have good T access for their commute. The Traffic Solutions parking study also showed that Brookline's current zoning dictates parking requirements that are one-third to one-half higher than rates in Cambridge, Somerville and the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual. We should lower the parking requirements. This will encourage use of alternative transportation, and it will encourage mixed use development, which could ultimately reduce auto-dependent travel as well.
Rather than just arguing about whether or not we have a parking shortage, we need to be honest about what we are really asking for and giving up when we want more parking behind the Coolidge Corner Theater. It is tempting to accept Mr. Brown's generosity, especially since the economics of developing the site are so challenging. Nonetheless, I encourage those who are planning for CC's future to keep their eyes on the prize and envision what that space could be, an asset for our community life and a place bursting with business opportunities.
Unfortunately, despite these laudable goals and the application of advanced technology, the resulting negative impacts of going forward with this proposal will far outweigh the potential gains. No matter how small and hidden we try to make a parking garage we are still choosing to give over a key part of our public realm to automobiles, rather than to people, or new businesses and the impacts of this choice go far beyond the site of the garage. The planning process is still underway that seeks to identify the development goals for the town owned land that is currently the Centre Street parking lot. We must take the time to look at the overall site and how it's development fits in with the future we wish to see for Coolidge Corner. It would be premature to decide now to build just one little piece of the puzzle and it would lock us into a scenario from which there would be no escape.
On a very basic level, there are serious traffic impacts if the robotic structure's 130 spaces were built in addition to the existing parking. An additional 130 parking spaces and all the vehicle trips in and out of them. Imagine the driveway at the Centre Street parking lot with twice as many vehicles traveling in and out. The driveway is too close to the Beacon Street intersection and it would become extremely difficult to turn left out of the lot. Then there is the left turn from Beacon to Centre Street, already a nightmare, now double the number of people trying to make that turn. Now imagine you are trying to walk down Centre Street, but you have to wade through all those cars driven by desperate people trying to get out. Then there is the question of where would the cars line up as they wait to get into the robotic deck? With all those additional cars, right next to all those occupied buildings, we have to ask ourselves, do we really want to be concentrating all those harmful emissions here? Functionally there are some really serious problems, but these are not the only or even the most important reasons why the structure should not be built.
I am aware that many are convinced that we need more parking in Coolidge Corner. Part of this perception is tied into the issue of long term parking needs for employees working at Coolidge Corner businesses. This is an issue that is being addressed separately, and employee parking would not be located here. The recent parking study performed by Traffic Solutions concluded that rather than a shortage of parking spaces, what is really happening is we are falling short in terms of utilizing the parking we do have. The study notes that regulations are not being fully enforced that would improve parking turnover, thereby making more spaces available for patrons. Additionally, available parking often goes unused due to lack of driver knowledge. People go to look for parking at the few places they are familiar with and don't bother to find out about other spaces that go unused. Better signage and public education could go a long way to address this knowledge gap.
There is disagreement about parking availability, and people's beliefs are based on perceptions. What is really at the heart of this debate are expectations. If everyone defines available parking as being able to drive and park right in front of your destination, then there is a lack of parking. What people don't realize is that fulfilling this expectation implies a trade-off. If we choose to make providing ultra-convenient parking our priority, we are precluding other uses for the land and making the public realm in that central location more hostile to the pedestrian. It's a question of location.
If we build this structure on our one remaining prime piece of land in Coolidge Corner, we will not be encouraging alternative transportation or the use of the alternative parking lots we already have. If we have learned anything about the automobile and cities it is that places that cater exclusively to cars are not very nice places to walk through or near. If we want a commercial core that has a lively street life, one that is pleasant to stroll through and to window shop, to sit on a bench, or to spend time in our hoped for new civic space, it cannot be successful if all those people have to cross many busy driveways, or walk through parking lots or sit next to a parking garage.
If we can park a block away and walk, or better yet take the T, walk or ride a bike, we can have a commercial core that we will want to visit and spend time in. There is a self-fulfilling aspect to building parking at such a central location. If that parking space is there, people will drive, when they could perhaps have chosen not to drive. With streetscape amenities, vital ground floor retail and civic space, the area becomes one that is nurturing to relaxation and community life. This is what we would be giving up. What we want is to create is a commercial area that is so compelling people will want to come here even if they can't park in front of the store. If convenient parking were all that we had to offer, the customer might as well go to the mall. Shopping has become more than just shopping in our culture, people are looking for an experience and genuine human interaction, along with unique retail offerings. We are poised to provide this. People will come from further away because it will be inviting. Think about the vast number of people with access to the MBTA who are potential new customers.
Lowering our parking expectations is a long term proposition with great potential benefits besides just improved land use. There are the environmental benefits from people switching to the T to get here. New employees will self-select from the pool of those who have good T access for their commute. The Traffic Solutions parking study also showed that Brookline's current zoning dictates parking requirements that are one-third to one-half higher than rates in Cambridge, Somerville and the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual. We should lower the parking requirements. This will encourage use of alternative transportation, and it will encourage mixed use development, which could ultimately reduce auto-dependent travel as well.
Rather than just arguing about whether or not we have a parking shortage, we need to be honest about what we are really asking for and giving up when we want more parking behind the Coolidge Corner Theater. It is tempting to accept Mr. Brown's generosity, especially since the economics of developing the site are so challenging. Nonetheless, I encourage those who are planning for CC's future to keep their eyes on the prize and envision what that space could be, an asset for our community life and a place bursting with business opportunities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)