Demolishing Brookline one House at a Time

As I react to the flurry of demolition requests in and around my neighborhood, I think, this must be what it feels like to be on a volunteer fire department. You try to get on with your everyday life, yet your antennae is up, ready to receive the alarm at any moment. You and your comrades run to the scene of impending devastation and you do what you can. Once in a while you are victorious, at least to some degree, and the dreaded devastation is kept to a minimum. When this happens, you acknowledge that luck had something to do with it. Your tools are inadequate, your frustration and sense of failure great. A sad heaviness clutches your heart.

Three months into 2010 and there have been 8 demolition requests for houses in Brookline. Five of these requests have been delayed by the Preservation Commission because the house has been found to be historically significant. These five homes are 70 Sewall, 64 Naples, 163 Kent, 19 Hilltop and 59 Green. Usually, this action simply delays the inevitable, but as our preservation staff has said, "sometimes miracles happen".

 70 Sewall Ave. 1898 Home of Charles Flagg, Architect, Julius A. Schweinfurth

It's worth asking the question, why is this happening? It is of course difficult to generalize to all cases, but it is fair to say that for those tear downs that are most disconcerting, i.e. those where significant historic architecture is lost and neighborhood fabric is torn asunder, there are a confluence of particular circumstances. First of course is the high value of land and the high price to be had for housing in Brookline. (i.e. money to be made). Next, is the reality that our zoning allows the construction of  buildings much larger than those commonly found in the surrounding neighborhood and, adding to the mismatch with context, the required setbacks do not necessarily match those of neighboring structures. Third, then, if you are a developer, you simply wait for an existing house to lose some of its value through age and neglect, perhaps a death or divorce in the family, (i.e. eager seller) and you have a recipe for a successful tear down and build scenario. Sadly, the result is often the loss of a unique, finely made home that contributed to the beauty and fit the context of the neighborhood. In its place, often comes modern cookie-cutter construction, built to maximum size with minimum amenities. There are no regulatory protections in place to prevent this scenario from happening over and over again throughout our neighborhoods. The higher the density of the underlying zoning, the greater the pressure, or allure, from the developers' point of view.

Each time this scenario is about to play out, neighbors rally, acutely aware of what's at stake. In vain they look to our Town planning staff and volunteer boards for assistance. They begin to wonder why the potential for this occurrence wasn't anticipated. Why is there such seeming indifference towards protecting what they know to be the key assets of our community? They are told that they can participate in "design review" of the new project,  but as this process proceeds they find their influence often limited to superficial aspects of the design of the new building, such as colors or siding materials. The major decisions seem to have already been made by others, elsewhere. These decisions were in fact dictated by rules and regulations already in place, financial considerations and a deference to the rights of the land owner to maximize profit with minimal effort. 

Finding themselves in this situation, citizens often realize that the one remaining regulatory mechanism available to them is the establishment of a Local Historic District. In the best of circumstances, an LHD would be created organically, with plenty of time and care, based on a realization by homeowners and preservation officials of the value of protecting worthwhile properties. This has not been the case in Brookline, where LHD's have become the de facto planning mechanism for neighborhoods who can muster the organization and will to save themselves. We are now hearing from our preservation and planning staff that they are overburdened, they cannot handle another LHD. This is extremely ironic, given the fact that the plethora of LHD's is a symptom of the lack of proactive planning to begin with. Spontaneous, neighborhood lead LHD organizing efforts represent a grass-roots movement to deflect the rapacious churning under of our cultural and built heritage, and yet we do not seem able to commit the necessary resources to facilitate this effort. What does this say about the Town's ability to be stewards of our community?

What we are seeing played out in this drama is the classic conflict between use value and exchange value. It is really helpful to understand this distinction, for it colors every decision we make about planning and zoning. Our culture and laws seeks a precarious middle road between the two and depending on your perspective you likely value one over the other. The use value of real estate is what everyone who owns a home and lives in it enjoys. They choose their home because of the particulars of the structure as well as purchasing a share in a neighborhood, town, community, school district, etc. with a certain set of assumptions about what that means. They love the look and feel of the street they live on, the park across the street, access to Brookline schools, or their proximity to the T, etc. All of these things factor into the value of their home, both to them and to any one else looking for a place to live. If the park across the street were suddenly paved for a parking lot, their property would lose value. Their homes' value remains anchored to its current use as a home.

The exchange value of a property however is something else all together, and because of the disparity between the size, scale and form of existing structures and the generous and general standards in our current zoning ordinance, the exchange value of a property is inflated significantly. This gives the owner who does not value the use value, (i.e. they don't live there) a strong incentive to want to tear down and build big. Now, buying the land, tearing down and building new is not cheap, so the developer feels they must max out the sites' potential to get a decent return.

The problem with all this is that an essential conflict of interests has been created. Maximizing the exchange value by one individual reduces the use value of the remaining properties on the block or in the wider community. That "look and feel" of the street that you bought into when you purchased your home is no longer there.  If you believe that that the beautiful historic architecture contributes to the desirability of Brookline as a place to live, then its destruction diminishes the value of housing in Brookline. The private actions and gains of a single land owner has caused negative impacts to ripple out into the community. Zoning is meant to prevent this. Planning boards are meant to act on behalf of the public to protect their interests, to help balance the equation between the maximizing of exchange value and maintenance of use value.  It is entirely possible to have regulations in place that would be fair to both parties while giving better guidance on form, size, scale, setback, on-site amenities, etc. generating better results.

Beyond the "out of scale" etc. issues there is of course the sad fact of tearing down one-of-a-kind craftsmanship and solid, beautiful structures. It is just not possible to build such quality today. Why would it make sense to send it to the landfill? Just look closely at some of the new construction around town and ask yourself if it looks like it will still be viable in 100 + years? We cannot afford to waste these precious resources. It doesn't make sense. Not from an energy point of view, not from a resource and materials point of view, not from a cultural heritage point of view. This level of craftsmanship will never be created again, why throw it away as if it is of no value? And yet, we have no way of "internalizing" this external cost. This thing of great value, (the exquisite craftsmanship and beauty of the historic home's interior and exterior features) has no value in the equation. Unless the developer has sufficient vision and understanding to realize that potential buyers will value and therefore pay a premium for this quality, they are likely to choose quantity over quality for their building plans.

The LHD mechanism may be, in some cases a clumsy and ill suited "planning" mechanism.  Adaptive re-use is a positive. Large single family houses may not be practical for many of today's smaller families and adding additional housing units without tearing down existing structures seems like a good idea. Shifting demographics will create the need for a range of housing alternatives, such as assisted living, co-housing, group living structures,  live/work spaces, commercial space, etc. Proactive planning for better neighborhood design need not preclude these options.

In the meanwhile, I hope you will let your voice be heard if you value these homes and their contribution to our community. Speak out about what their destruction will mean to you and your neighbors.

Rethinking Coolidge Corner Lane Scheme

I have some serious concerns about the latest Transportation Board proposal for lane changes at the Harvard/Beacon intersection at Coolidge Corner.

The most recently proposed plan, to reduce the number of southbound Harvard Street lanes to one on the north side of Beacon St., remove the median on this same side of the intersection and add an additional northbound lane,  has come about as a result of focusing entirely on trying to solve the problem of gridlock or “blocking” that occurs regularly at this intersection. While this is a serious problem, I do not think the proposed solution will be effective, nor does it address the most prominent contributing factor. However, in addition to these shortcomings, I fear we have overlooked some of the serious negative consequences likely to result from this narrowly focused attempt to “fix the problem”.

We can surely all agree that there is a heavy volume of vehicle traffic flowing North on Harvard St. Beyond this point, I fear there are as many opinions as there are individuals. My professional experience leads me to the conclusion that there are two principle reasons why the traffic fails to clear the intersection before the green signal activates (and then frustrates) the westbound Beacon St. flows. Number one is the simple fact that two lanes of traffic must merge into one. Allowing a bit more space for this to occur by having an additional lane accepting traffic on the far side of the intersection will not sufficiently accommodate the merging traffic. To complicate things, your proposal retains curbside parking here. While I support maintaining the parking for its traffic calming and pedestrian buffer functions, the “friction” caused by parking vehicles and the inevitable double parkers will minimize the effectiveness of the scheme you are proposing if your goal was to maximize traffic flow through this bottle neck.

A much more effective solution would be to eliminate the two to one lane merge all together by making the northbound right hand lane on the south side of Harvard for right turns and buses only. That way only one through lane would be crossing Beacon St. to begin with. Yes, this will extend queue’s on Harvard St. A don’t block the box treatment and enforcement would be necessary at Longwood. Otherwise, there is sufficient storage capacity for the resulting queue. Yes, traffic will back up on Harvard, it already does, but the “flow” will be regulated before it enters the intersection at Beacon and the problem will be eliminated.

Another contributing factor to the gridlock problem relates to the width of Beacon St. It appears that the signal timing does not adequately compensate for this. It appears that some vehicles entering the intersection on the yellow (and sometimes red) do not have adequate time to travel the full distance to clear the intersection, regardless of or made worse by the delay at the merge. If the clearance time were lengthened, that is if the signal on Beacon St. simply stayed red longer, drivers would be spared the frustration.

Even if, after considering my comments you still believe the proposed changes will work for the limited goal of moving more vehicles through this very small segment of our roadway network, I ask that we take a moment to stand back and ask ourselves what our overall goal should be and what the wider consequences from this change may be.

Coolidge Corner is, for many a vital transportation and commercial hub. Thousands of commuters from the T stream through daily, stopping at shops and restaurants on their way. Thousands more visit daily from home on foot. It is for their comfort and safety that I object to this scheme. The median in the middle of Harvard Street is a vital refuge for many a pedestrian, especially those who have difficulty speedily crossing in front of impatient drivers. I think it should be extended rather than eliminated. Consider also the effect of combining the through and right turn lane in the southbound direction. Who hasn’t been walking across the street, only to hear the car behind the car waiting for you lay on its horn? The volume of pedestrians is heavy at this intersection. We should be really glad for the high pedestrian volume because if each one those people were in a car, they would be taking up 60 times more space than they do on foot, none of us would be going anywhere.

Because of the heavy volume of pedestrians, right turning vehicles will sometimes wait a long time before they can turn, thus blocking the through travel. How patient will those drivers be after waiting through a light or two? How safe, comfortable or relaxed will the pedestrian crossing the street in front of those drivers be?

Already, the automobile is favored over the pedestrian at this intersection. There is no protected pedestrian phase, despite the heavy pedestrian volume. Many times car drivers play dodgem trying to turn through a group of pedestrians. All of this is particularly menacing for elderly or disabled people. Most people have no idea that they must press the very distant button (which is often blocked by snow mounds) to get a walk signal. They either wait and wait, or finally give up and go. This is especially problematic for parents with young children who are trying to teach their kids how to cross safely using the signal. If we make it more difficult and dangerous and unpleasant to walk, which I think this scheme does, we are “shooting ourselves in the foot” in terms of mitigating congestion or maximizing the capacity of our infrastructure, as walkers will take to cars because they no longer feel safe. Infrastructure is a precursor to activity. Make room for more cars and you get more cars. Make it more pleasant to walk and more people will walk. It is that simple. Make Coolidge Corner more people friendly and you get more people.

Paying attention to and giving greater accommodation to those on foot focuses our attention on the human scale and impacts the quality of everyone’s experience in Coolidge Corner. We have a choice. Can we find a balance between accommodating the through traffic and making Coolidge Corner a people place? I hope so.

SHIFTBoston Ideas Competition

On the frigid eve of January 14, 2010 the Institute of Contemporary Art was the setting for unveiling of the winners of the SHIFTBoston ideas competition. I was there. It was fun. Lots of folks who love the city, many of them unemployed architects, were enjoying the shared buzz of dreaming and creating a more lively and meaningful city. Check out the winners and significant contributions at the website below.

The brief for the competition, (from their website, Shiftboston.org) says this:


Let’s make Boston dynamic!

The SHIFTboston Ideas Competition 2009 called on all architects, artists, landscape architects, urban designers, engineers and anyone to submit their most provocative wild visions for the City of Boston: WHAT IF this could happen in Boston?

SHIFTboston seeks to collect visions that aim to enhance and electrify the urban experience in Boston. Innovative, radical ideas for new city elements such as public art, landscape, architecture, urban intervention and transportation. Competitors were encouraged to explore topics such as the future city, energy efficiency and ecological urbanism.

This competition is intended to collect and inspire. The goal is to attract greater public interest in future possibilities for the urban environment of Boston. We want to inspire and engage the city community while encouraging positive awareness and a hunger for change. We believe a collective desire to push boundaries and challenge the familiar are the necessary seeds with which to grow a more dynamic city!

THINK PLAY THINK NEW THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
We seek to drive a SHIFT in thinking, perception, attitude, definition, process, method, planning, and organization in order to re-energize Boston’s urban environment. We are here to move Boston forward. Be part of the SHIFT!

Despite their plea for open endedness, the brief actually gave a lot of direction, which was not necessarily a bad thing, but it is easy to see in hind sight how the entrees fit within the topics. I actually think they did a good job of provoking a direction just enough to contain the range, while still encouraging creativity. Remember too that entries were visually rendered. The world as defined by trained architects. So while the competition was named an "Ideas" competition, the realm of possible ideas was clearly visual/spatial. Again, not a bad thing, but a niche nonetheless. A reshaping of the world achieved through building or using space in a different way. To be able to enter, a person needed to have a profound mastery over rendering software, so the universe of possible entrants was delineated.

Some clear themes emerged. 1) Active use of public space. Such as urban farming on the Greenway, floating temporary park barges, or the winner, which proposed turning the unused Tremont subway tunnel into a theater space. 2) Interactive environments, using technology in response to natural forces to heighten our awareness of our environment. Such as the wind and light responsive dynamic light display in Fort Point Channel, or the harbor cleaning floating responsive technological play/learn barge. 3) Responses to climate change, these ranged from the simply profound blue chalk "water line" marking the new water level after sea levels rise, to the adaptive response to flooded land that proposed an acceptance of change rather than resistance. The green underpass walls, wind and water technology collaborative learning center and shared use kayaks hinted at an acknowledgment of building a more "harmoniously integrated" environment. A profound reawakening of our relationship to the ocean seems destined for our future, and was on the minds of many entrants.

After introducing the judges,  presenting the runners up and discussing the "dominant entry themes" the event's MC Brian Healy yielded the floor to the political luminaries in the audience. There was a Boston City Council member, who liked what he say and spoke about the need for Boston to be attractive to young people, which meant creating more opportunities for active public life, and Kairos Shen, Boston's Chief Planner, who stressed realism perhaps more than anyone else there that night, all the while noting that if the mayor were here, he would be wildly happy. A representative of the State's Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development pleaded for help and ideas for solving the problem of matching building opportunities that he oversees with truly creative talent. A valuable identification of a solvable problem, and I am sure many in the audience were more than happy to learn about a new source for employment opportunities.

While those present clearly yearned for a loosening of the restrictions and negativity that so often meets new ideas, there was no shortage of inspiration. The temporary nature of many of the proposals held out the greatest hope for implementation. What many fear, (and rightly so in many cases), is the imposition of "of the moment" fads and fancies of architects that will not stand the test of time and are hopelessly out of scale and context to their surroundings. Loss of meaning through destruction of our built heritage is not necessarily the best route forward. But there is also the need to create and to respond to present needs and life styles. The ideas generated here, pose a third alternative with their innovative, and often temporary re-use and re-claiming of unused and unwanted spaces and places. This seems particularly appropriate in our short-attention span era and somehow suits the needs of a limited energy , finite space and financially constrained reality. The cry for more human contact, interaction and fun was palpable. While striving to be futuristic, the entries were, in reality, sublimely of the moment.

What is Balanced Transportation?

It has been said that Peter Furth was ousted from his seat on Brookline's Transportation Board because he was "too focused on bicycles". Not even getting into the truth about Professor Furth's bona fide credentials as a world class transportation engineer, let's just stop for a minute and think about what saying that someone is "too focused on bicycles" to be on the Transportation Board means.

Bicycles are one form of transportation. A very efficient, inexpensive, accessible and non-polluting one at that. In fact, it's fair to say that we have become so biased in our view that we think myopically, assuming that "transportation" is code speak for moving cars. Can we imagine someone saying "he's too focused on cars"? By articulating how to improve conditions for bicycling, we are making an effort to nudge our thinking a bit. Our community could improve if we viewed our public streets as a community asset and amenity meant to be used in a way that promotes access, safety and livability. This means looking holistically at the needs of the those in a car, those on foot, those riding a bike, and those riding the bus and train. How do all those moving parts interact with one another?, with their environment? and how can we best provide access between to all possible origins and destinations for the benefit of the greatest number of people in the most efficient manner? We need to think about the mobility needs of all members of our community. To speak about the needs of bicyclist's is to try to broaden our thinking to include accommodating other forms of transportation besides the automobile. And so, it is in fact an act of bringing balance to the board to have a member who has such a broad perspective already and with the experience and expertise to speak for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and drivers.

When it comes to trying to achieve "balance" between an auto and a bicycle or pedestrian, it's a bit like talking about the "balance" between an innocent deer in the woods and a hunter with a rifle. The safety equation is heavily skewed in favor of the one with the weapon. In this case, the automobile. I read a recent article about an AARP survey of aging drivers. In a setting where complete dependence on the automobile is subsidized and fostered, it is understandable that elders fear the isolation and reduced opportunities for an active life that giving up driving entails. When asked about whether or not they considered walking an appropriate alternative to driving, the most frequent reason given for not thinking it was, was a lack of safety! Elders can no longer drive safely, yet they fear for their life as a pedestrian. This is a direct result of designing our streets and intersections to facilitate the maximum movement of cars instead of focusing on making it safe (let alone pleasant) to cross the street on foot.

At a time when obesity related health issues and the direct health implications of climate change threaten our very existence, you would think we would want to do everything we can to make it safe and enjoyable to walk and bike, whenever these modes might be a via alternative. What those who fear these accommodations don't realize is that it is not an all or nothing proposition, but rather a case of providing a viable choice for those who might wish to choose it if it were available. While many argue that accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians is catering to the "fringe few" this is a disingenuous argument. How can we gauge the "market demand" for something that doesn't even exist in the market place? Bicycle safety increases dramatically the more bicyclists there are.

It can also be said that Peter Furth does have a balanced viewpoint, or more importantly a realistic viewpoint, understanding and having expertise in all modes of transportation engineering. He has studied how people get around, around the world, and it is this breadth of understanding that allows him to see the potential for doing things better in Brookline. The changes he has advocated for in Brookline, and the one that apparently cost him his seat on the Board, was extremely modest, and he helped work towards a compromise when objections were raised. And yet those who favor the status quo above all else have made their wishes known and gotten him booted off the board. By the way, I think Bill Schwartz will be a fine addition to the Board, but a seat could have been found for him when a vacancy opened up, it did not have to be at the expense of someone of Peter's talents who was willing to serve.

It is also disappointing to contemplate the broader implications of the move to ouster Professor Furth. Here we have someone with a great deal of professional skill and expertise who volunteers their time and energies, but in making an attempt to apply themselves, arouses a few vocal opponents. This, despite the fact that the Transportation Board, Mr. Furth included, worked very hard to listen to and accommodate all concerns. The result, he is removed. This, I am afraid, does not encourage those who have valuable insights to contribute to step up and volunteer.

YourBrookline.org

Brookline Community Foundation has a new website, YourBrookline.org that focuses on generating social capital. Local groups can post their organizations profiles, listings and events. There is a master calendar and various ways to search. My group, the Friends of the Minot Rose Garden uses it. Community members interested in finding out about volunteer opportunities or interesting things to do have a one stop shop. Check it out!

Car-Sharing and Brookline: a Perfect Match

Wheels When You Want Them. Actually, I think a more accurate slogan might be, wheels when you need them. It's a subtle difference, but it gets at the heart of why Zipcar members drive so much less than private auto owners.

3,300 residents of Brookline rely on ZipCars. Why is there a demand for car sharing in Brookline? In short, our residential density and proximity to business centers make transit, walking and biking viable transportation alternatives. Roughly one half of our resident work force gets to work without driving. More than half of the non-work travel is accomplished without a car as well. As a result, many only need to use a car occasionally. Using a shared car for that trip makes perfect sense. Car sharing enables car shedding.

For many the option to give up one or more of their vehicles has meant the difference between being able to live in Brookline or being forced to leave. Freeing themselves from the heavy burdens of car ownership, car share users save both time and money that can be better spent locally. Significantly, users have more resources to put towards housing costs. CSO’s are particularly beneficial to residents of North Brookline, where off-street parking is at a premium and efforts to accommodate private vehicle ownership has had serious negative consequences. We’ve struggled with the paving over of our lawns and green spaces, seen the negative consequences to new housing design, incurred significant additional costs for parking and dealt with severe traffic impacts. Car sharing helps address all of these concerns, by reducing both parking demand and vehicle traffic.

How does car sharing reduce vehicle traffic? Not having that private vehicle in the driveway increases an individual’s use of transit, walking and biking. If we must plan ahead and pay for each car trip we take, we will only use a car when it is the best choice, rather than the convenient or habitual choice. Choosing instead to walk, bike or take transit when we can. They are easier. We don't have to reserve in advance, we don't have to pay by the hour and we don't have to be back on time. Zipcar membership promotes "conscious transportation consumption". These effects have been repeatedly documented in many cities with car sharing. Less traffic has the synergistic effect of making it more pleasant to walk and bike for everyone.

Concerns have been raised about the potential for oppressive impacts from CSO vehicles. Zipcar has been in Brookline since 2001. Today there are 78 cars at 34 sites. 59 of these vehicles have been located in residential zones without any problems or complaints. This track record gives us plenty of evidence showing how comfortably CSO’s can be accommodated throughout town. Concerns about heavy site-specific traffic from CSO vehicles are unfounded. In fact, Brookline’s zipcars are used an average of 1.5 times per day, which is analogous to a privately owned vehicle. Worries about displacing private parking seem counter-intuitive. Car-sharing reduces parking demand, with each CSO vehicle accommodating more than 40 members, many of whom got rid of or avoided acquiring a personal vehicle. As for the rowdy zipsters in the night, irresponsible zipcar members will not be members for long. ZipCar is careful to ensure its drivers are safe and responsible and you must be 21 to join. The average age of Brookline’s zipcar users is 38.

Allowing CSO’s in Brookline brings many benefits to our neighborhoods, the environment, our economy and lifestyle. Article 13 has been crafted to legalize existing CSO locations and brings oversight and input to the process of creating new sites. Car sharing reduces reliance on automobiles while retaining mobility, making it an important piece of a more sustainable transportation future for Brookline. Zipcar membership allows us to jettison our privately owned automobile. Many of us living in Brookline are lucky enough to not really need a car f

What's With the Gray Box?

It's hard to miss the unique new structures going up around the former Presbyterian Church on the corner of Harvard Street and Pierce Street. These days, lots of folks passing through Brookline Village or visiting Town Hall, Pierce School or the Library stop dead in their tracks and gaze up at the strange, almost windowless gray cube that seems to almost float, detached from its surroundings, hugging the sidewalk. The exterior material appears to be something with a matte finish that resembles cardboard and despite its cube-like visage, its shape actually includes a jaunty angle or two.

We learn from the sign posted on the corner of Harvard and Pierce that this is part of the new Community Center addition for the Korean Church at this site. In addition to the gray cube the site design includes an extensive concrete wall surrounding a "plaza" and an overly large modern structure with anti-angled roof next to a house on Holden St., right across the street from Town Hall. The illustrations from the project boards, while giving the improbable bird's-eye viewing angle, nevertheless, illustrate something of the finished products. (I digress here to note that these types of presentation views fail to offer any insight whatsoever as to what the buildings will look like from the point of view of a person walking past on the sidewalk, or from down the street or for that matter driving past. Therefore, those charged with reviewing the proposal must be able to read the plans and drawings and envisage the resulting experience for themselves).





It is hard to see how these structures "fit" into the context of their surroundings. While this is not a blanket condemnation of modern architecture, I have to say there was no attempt to design the buildings or to design the site layout in a way that would in any way create a pleasing street scape or pedestrian experience. In fact, I don't think the building's users will find much delight here either, considering all that harsh concrete, lack of windows and strangely shaped interior space. As a pedestrian on Harvard St. we are confronted with a form molded concrete wall, getting taller as we proceed southward until it is eye level or higher before we get to the cube, which seems strangely shoved to the sidewalk's edge, despite the lack of structural bulk between it and the church building. Walking along Pierce Street, as the new formed concrete wall begins, we are treated to what seems destined to become a large electrical service box (the base for the box is there now), placed right in the former front lawn of the existing church building.

As for the Holden St. side of the project. Imagine living in that house next to the seemingly massive, wedged-in-there oddly angled building. It appears that this structure too will have a similar exterior material. What was once a residential setting has become something else altogether. This structure no more relates to the church than it does to the house on the other side of it. It seems to be deliberately designed to be as distinct as possible. Are we dealing with Brookline's own version of a "starachitect". An attempt by a singular personality to make waves by creating a structure so unique that it can't be ignored? Why would we want that here, in this closely knit setting of historic homes, businesses and public buildings?

The cube itself is a monolithic presence, kind of like a big stereo speaker in a room of antique furniture, as we look across the street to the fine historic red brick buildings, with their inviting doors and windows, fine detailing and timeless simplicity. It would have been entirely possible to design a modern structure that nonetheless fit in this setting. Had it had some elements remotely in common with the structures in the vicinity, namely the original church, the house on Holden, or the brick buildings on Harvard, be it materials, height, massing, roof height and angle, the rhythm of windows, shape, form, etc. But these structures have none of these.

Just what is that material that the cube is made of? I believe the architect said it was a colored "cementitious" material, but I must say it doesn't look as if it will weather very well.



So how did this project get approval? Our zoning ordinance includes special consideration for building proposals on Harvard St., calling for additional design review. This is obviously in recognition of the need to "get it right" when it comes to designing for this prime Brookline Village location. The zoning for the site is G 2.0 which allows a building floor area that is twice the lot area, a maximum height of 45 ft. and has no set back or open space requirements. So, almost anything could meet the bare minimum of the zoning, hence the need for the design review and one of its key standards, "Relation of Buildings to the Form of the Streetscape and Neighborhood" which states that the proposed development shall be consistent with the use, scale, yard setbacks and architecture of existing buildings and the overall streetscape of the surrounding area.

When I asked a Planning Board member about this project, I was told that this development was brought to us courtesy of the Dover Amendment. The Dover Amendment (M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3) is a state law that states that "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements."

As I understand it, the main purpose behind the Dover amendment is to disallow local governments the option of denying (or making such restrictive requirements that it amounts to a denial) building permits to churches and educational institutions. It is assumed that this is needed to counterbalance the preferential treatment that local government permitting bodies might bestow on taxable developments over non-profits. As in the case of affordable housing, it is thought that the competition between local communities for tax dollars creates a disincentive for allowing the publicly beneficial or necessary functions that non-profits bring. It is a blunt club trying to even the playing field. There have also been arguments made that the Dover amendment is needed to prevent discrimination against certain faiths or ethnic groups, etc. As with most laws, the true meaning is derived through case law as those left to interpret its meaning become embroiled in disputes about the meaning of various aspects, such as whether or not the building is "integral to the mission" of the educational institution or just how "unregulated" does the project have to be. The give and take between local governments and religious and educational institutions wishing to build and expand has of course led to a continuous parsing of the finer points of interpretation of this bit of legal code.

A question in this case might be are the "community center" buildings that comprise the church expansion "integral to the exercise of their religion"? The house of worship already exists. These buildings are to accommodate various community functions. If they are not integral to the practice of their religion, than they would not be protected under the Dover Amendment and their design could be made to comply with the above mentioned design standards.

These buildings probably do meet those limited elements of our zoning code that can be regulated under Dover, (height, bulk, lot coverage, etc.). However, it is nonetheless common for towns to seek dialogue and review on project proposals.

In the case of this project the architect was asked to appear before our Planning Board for a "courtesy" design review. Amazingly enough, it turns out that for the most part, our Board members said they liked the design. I doubt seriously that our Board members were able to conceive in their minds eye the way this project actually looks from the various angles we are destined to experience it, such as what the concrete wall will be like to walk next too for half a block, or how "detached", ill-placed and odd the cube looks from the perspective of the pedestrian walking on Harvard. Had they done so, I would hope they would have realized just how "out of context" and frankly ridiculous this project really is, and armed with that visage of the future, they might have tried to negotiate for a better design, or looked into the question of Dover applicability a bit more robustly.

Here is what our Planning Board members said about this project's design, as quoted from the minutes of their 04/18/07 meeting with Brian Healy, the project's architect.


"Linda Hamlin said she likes the modern design of the building, and
appreciates the strategy to address adjacent buildings in the residential
and commercial areas. Linda Hamlin said she is concerned about the
concrete wall along Harvard Street, and replacing the existing stone wall,
in regards to maintenance and friendliness. Brian Healy said he
understands her concerns with the wall, and says he will do mock-ups to
select the best design. Linda Hamlin asked about the windows on the east
elevation. Brian Healy clarified, and showed the Board the plans and
elevations. Steve asked about the height of the wall. Brian Healy said
it will be from 3’ to 5’ in height. Steve said he also appreciates a
modern design, but has also shares Linda Hamlin’s concerns about the
concrete wall. Steven Heikin said he does not feel the design addresses
the residential and commercial contexts of the two streetscapes. Kenneth
Goldstein said he likes the design on Harvard Street, but feels the design
on Holden Street elevation does not address the residential character of
the street.

Jerome Kampler said he is not a fan of modern architecture. Jerome
Kampler said he was concerned the house on Holden Street would see a
concrete wall out of their north windows. Kenneth Goldstein agreed, and
said the addition is not residential in character. Jerome Kampler asked
why they weren’t taking advantage of the windows on the south side. Brian
Healy said they wanted to better utilize the play of light within the
chapel by keeping the wall dark.

Linda Hamlin said she felt the building scale was appropriate considering
the institutional nature of the area. Jerome Kampler said he felt no
residential neighbor would want to open a window and see a blank concrete
wall."



The architect has been described to me as "arrogant", and it may be that, because of the Dover protections, the Town would not have been able to gain any concessions on this unfortunate design. But I would have liked to think that our public servants (planning board, town councel, planning staff, etc.) would have more clearly seen that this design was a negative for the village and pursued all avenues to seek a better result. I don't think that happened and now we are stuck with it for a very long time.

Under Surveillance

The debate in Brookline over whether or not to accept 24/7 video surveillance of our "Critical Infrastructure" as a part of the nine-community Metro Boston Homeland Security Region has been far reaching and intense. For some, the issue has brought to the fore and highlighted deep seated beliefs about the nature of freedom in a democratic society, the role of government, the nature of the "threat", the potential for mistakes and abuse, the paralyzing effects of fear and whether or not cameras add to or alleviate this effect, and the need to safeguard civil liberties.
Still others focus more prosaically on questions such as whether or not the cameras will be useful for their intended purpose, the potential for application for other purposes good and bad, the true costs now and in the future of the "system", the opportunity costs of dedicating police resources to surveillance and not other types of policing, and wondering about the possibility of a meaningful assessment of the program during the 1-yr trial period. And then there are those who simply do not wish to second guess our Police Chief.

It is this later motivation which I believe has trumped the considerations of our Selectmen so far. After all they are the ones who have to work very closely with the Chief and must rely on his cooperation and good will to "get the job done" in the exemplary manner we have come to expect. Avoidance of conflict is not, however, a good enough reason to impose a critical infrastructure with such far reaching ramifications onto the citizens of Brookline without careful consideration of all the tough questions nor without accounting for the general feelings of unease this proposition has engendered. This is after all the way we approach all other difficult decision making. Other department heads must undergo similar questioning and scrutiny without taking it either personally or holding a grudge, it comes with the territory.

What is most interesting to me is the general mindset this debate has tended to reveal, in terms of how people view the idea of Homeland Security and whether or not people have a critical skepticism about the motives and effectiveness of programs originating from the Department of Homeland Security. Some see the world in terms of all its potential dangers and seek to deploy all available tools to combat these threats, even to the point of not questioning their true efficacy, finding comfort in the fact that they have done all that they can. Their thinking runs along the lines of, "Imagine if something terrible happened and we could have prevented it, or someone may have been helped, if we had the cameras, I would never forgive myself if I was responsible for the lack of cameras." It kind of reminds me of those who wish to employ all possible life prolonging medical technology at the end of life, just in case...

On the other end of the spectrum are those whose worst nightmare is the harassment, accusation or imprisonment by the government, or police, of an innocent victim who whether or not they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time or were simply acting a bit "different" were nonetheless identified as a "suspect". The culture of fear run amok. On a more subtle level many are concerned with the general culture of conformity and suppression of freedom caused by the threat of this occurrence. For these individuals, the cameras simply heighten the general feelings of paranoia running rampant today and perpetuate the dissolution of our feelings of trust and human connection. The opposite of fostering community.

For those who see the cameras as protection, those who see danger in surveillance are seen as "crazy radicals or those who have something to hide". For those who see the cameras as a threat to civil liberties, those who see the cameras as protection are pinning their hopes on a flawed and false "techno fix" and have been duped into a dangerous mind set of trusting "government protection against unseen threats".

To me one critical fact about this question, especially as it relates to our relationship with our Police Chief is that this is a system designed and financed by entities beyond the Town. We can argue until the cows come home about whether or not cameras may or may not help solve crimes (its been pretty conclusively shown they do not prevent crime). That's not the point, because this system was designed to aid in the evacuation of Boston and everything about it, from the choice of cameras to the data system to the camera's locations have determined with that in mind. The fact that our Chief has tried to make use of the cameras for other things is commendable, but not very convincing. Repeatedly at various hearings and forums, in response to citizen's concerns about being under surveillance in public areas, the Chief has said "the cameras are simply pointing in the middle of the road". If this is the case then, how can they be truly useful for solving crimes? We have been told that the camera's are "our cameras and under our control". However, when asked if then we could locate the cameras wherever we wanted, the Chief answered no.

Had we been presented with a well designed surveillance plan arising out of a spontaneous need and developed to address specific problems in Brookline, (identified by our Police, that was not a blanket 24/7 surveillance of public areas), I believe we would be having a much different conversation. However, that is not the case. As is obvious, these cameras are not free. The decision to "refer to Committee" so very popular in Brookline is, in this case only a way to defer making a decision. The task of truly evaluating both the tangible and intangible potential costs and benefits of this system are beyond the capabilities of this and just about any other possible committee.

For many, our local crime problems could be better addressed through increased patrolling, including officers on foot or bike and better lighting, not remote surveillance. A greater police presence with face to face interaction would add to citizens feelings of safety and security.

The Chief clearly has our safety and well-being in mind, no one doubts this. He also wishes to avail himself of the latest technology and is loathe to turn down such a "gift", or to become a "non-complying" community within the consortium. However, this is a decision whose impacts have such far reaching repercussions that the burden of that decision must be borne by us. Brookline has a long history of independence and we should not be afraid to exercise that choice once more.

Lessons From Bogata

Once again, an inspiring urban leader has come to Boston. Enrique Penalosa, former mayor of Bogata, Columbia held forth at multiple speaking engagements last week, thanks to the Livable Streets Alliance, Walk Boston and the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. As with Nicky Gavron, the former deputy mayor of London who I saw speak last year, there was much food for thought as we heard about the farsighted transformations realized by this remarkable urban leader.

The capacity crowd filled the Rabb Lecture Hall as Mr. Penalosa began his presentation. Distilling things down to their essence, he was able to convey, not just the mechanics of his remarkable public transportation and urban planning vision, but the basic philosophy that underpins his view of cities, how they function and what makes them livable. The fundamentals he presented have relevance anywhere and we would all do well to remember them as we plan and make policy in our own communities.

In London, all policies and plans flowed from a single driving principal, namely to make London the city of the future by planning for sustainability in all sectors. Every possible program, expenditure and policy was held to this metric and every effort was made to mutually support initiatives through multiple means. This type of single-minded purpose, which in practice, becomes the homing beacon for a wide-ranging and mutually supporting set of initiatives is very much like the process that miraculously surfaced in Bogota. The transformation of Bogota from a city of despair and desperation to one of hope and optimism was based on holistic, practical, bottom-up thinking and carried forth by a series of strong charismatic leaders.

Mr. Penalosa's vision emanates from a what he calls "Urban Happiness", which could best be summarized as a "people first" perspective. To understand how to achieve urban happiness we first had to come to grips with a few basic truths, which Penalosa proceeded to lay bare with simplicity and clarity. Each of them providing a theoretical foundation for the next:

1. Adam Smith doesn't work in cities.

In other words, everyone working to maximize their own benefit doesn't equal the best outcome for the public at large. To redress this balance is government's job. Those with little income or resources also lack political power, which is why "democracy" alone, does not work to the advantage of the disadvantaged. In the end, maximizing the benefit of all brings the greatest amount of prosperity to the community by raising standards of education, human potential fulfillment, health and contentment.

2. There is a basic conflict between people and cars in a city.

How is it that we accept as normal the constant threat to our lives, our children's lives and our freedom of movement from the automobile? Given free reign, the car took over the most congested, and once pedestrian dominated spaces of our villages, central cities and neighborhoods. In developing countries the inequality of this is even more pronounced, as the percentage who own cars is very small, yet their tyranny over the environment is no less total. The answer is not to give everyone cars. As populations increase, density increases, infrastructure and land costs are prohibitive, the environmental and energy costs laid bare etc. the "American sprawl" model is revealed to be a domed strategy. Practical mass transit solutions are essential. A variety of modes, all given equal weight, dignity and investment are necessary to ensure continued circulation, public health, equity, access and preservation of a public life.
In our relatively recent history, we have allowed the private automobile to dominate and harass all forms of life. Cars aren't necessarily bad, but they belong some places and not others. People are social beings and we have allowed the automobile to destroy our public life.

3. Our greatest public spaces are our sidewalks.

How easy it is to take this vital resource for granted, yet, when is it that we "run into" our neighbor? Do you get to stop to chat when you are whizzing by in your car? Do you get to have unexpected encounters when all your social exchanges must be planned ahead of time or worse occur via the mediated environment of the computer screen? If we don't have pleasant walking environments to "draw us out of our houses" and give us a reason to spend time in the presence of others, how will be feel a part of our community? How will we be exposed to diversity and retain our humanity and humility?

4. The way to judge the success of a building is whether or not it creates a pleasing experience for the pedestrian.

How many architectural models get evaluated from the "birds eye" perspective? Or how many drawings of buildings get presented to planning boards that show a building in isolation from the perspective of a passenger in a car in the middle of the road? What do these models and drawings tell us about the experience of that building as we walk past it? Nothing. The pedestrian environment is about details, scale, feeling comfortably protected yet not closed in. We have plenty of examples of pleasant pedestrian environments here in Brookline, thanks to our historic commercial areas. Too bad new building designers can't seem to internalize and utilize these lessons.

5. Cities are for people.

While trees and other natural elements are very welcome and soften the hard edges of the city, cities are about human interaction. As many studies have shown, (most notably by William Whyte and Jan Gehl) people are attracted to places where other people are. We might want to sit in the shade under a tree, but we want to be able to see everyone there, we won't go sit with our back to the "action". To put it simply, having a plaza, in the European sense of the word makes more sense than trying to recreate a forest in the city. Like the automobile, this is a case of having the appropriate environment in the appropriate place. When we need isolation, quiet and communion with nature in a different way, we go elsewhere, to our sanctuaries, national parks, etc. In the city, we enjoy liveliness.


6. People behave the way they are treated.

A better way to put this might be that when people are treated with respect, they are free to respect themselves and each other. By concentrating on providing services, facilities, parks, etc.that benefit all members of society, you help equalize opportunities and improve conditions for the community as a whole. This also extends to the psychological and cultural transformation that occurs when you elevate the pedestrian or bicyclist by protecting them and making it easy for them to enjoy getting around, rather than what is the usual case of treating the person on foot or bike as an obstacle to the car and making them feel not only threatened physically, but psychologically and socially inferior.

7. We are all equal in the public realm.

By mixing in public places, we are better able to remember our essential equality. Also, being exposed to diversity in a non-threatening way can help us remain open to new ideas and new ways of being. This is a fundamental principle that F.L. Olmsted believed in too. By providing public parks that were equally enjoyable to all classes and gave access to activities and settings that before had only been the province of elites, he hoped to ease tensions between classes and help integrate new immigrant populations into the community. This access was, Olmsted believed a fundamentally humanizing and health giving force that was a right and necessity for modern life. He also believed it was a key element to maintaining a functioning democracy.

8. Pedestrians and Bicyclists are not second class citizens and they deserve infrastructure investment, not making do.

After seeing Mr. Penalosa's slides of those wide dedicated bike lanes and separate walking paths, that were obviously carefully laid out to gently curve, provide views and access between key public facilities I could not help but contrast that with what we have here. How many fine days did I struggle to access the narrow strip of the Charles River Bike Path, just to get some exercise and a glimpse of the river...For most of the way, the bike path is bordered by Storrow Drive with its roaring cars, and the path itself is packed with cyclist, walkers, dog walkers, skaters, baby strollers, tourists, etc. it is an obstacle course because of the mix of users, so much so that one cannot really ride freely. Yet for this bit of scenery and access we are grateful. Everywhere else, it is only constant vigilance that keeps us from getting killed and we put up with it.....

9. If pedestrian and bicycling facilities are provided, people will use and enjoy them.

Many transportation professionals still view pedestrians and bicyclists as an after thought and do not plan roadways, sidewalks, intersections or new developments with them in mind. Some of this is just institutional inertia, some political will from the car driving public, but it becomes a chicken and the egg kind of problem. While the numbers are small, it seems easy to treat the pedestrians and bicyclists as an after thought, however, this is a self-fulfilling proposition. If facilities are built and planning done to make environments that are pleasant and safe to use, people will flock to use them. This has been proven through the ciclovia events, or "car-free" days that were sponsored in Bogota and other cities. Here we have our Sunday closing of Memorial Drive and our Bike Beacon St. day. When a facility is given over to bikes and people they happily take advantage! It becomes a question of shifting the balance in how we allocate what is a public resource, and an increasing valuable public resource at that, our streets and sidewalks. It is not an all or nothing proposition, but the balance is so far skewed towards auto use that just moving it a bit seems a momentous undertaking.

10. Waterfronts should be made available to the public and enjoyed by all. Not for roads, cars or private access.

Water is precious and soothing and in a city especially waterfronts can be the most beautiful settings. Unfortunately, highway engineers like to route roads next to rivers, etc. because the land is available and there are no intersections. This has cut off access to many cities most precious resource and we must take it back. In Paris they even bring in truck loads of sand and put up beach umbrellas on the roadway next to the Seine to create a "beach" in the summer and the citizens flock to it. Public access to water ways must be protected through laws as well, which prohibit the closing of beach access, etc.


One wonders how Mr. Penalosa and his predecessors where able to gather the necessary political support to begin their visionary reforms. But we are grateful for the example it has given us of enlightened leadership and planning.

The Year that Was

I usually hate those "let's look back and sum up" stories we get deluged with at this time of year, but I find myself reflective and drawn to do just that as I look out on the second (or third?) big snow storm of the season.

We all weathered our share of adversity and it doesn't look like it will end anytime soon. If you didn't lose your job yet, you likely know someone or several people who have. You watched your IRA or 401(k) if you had one, lose almost half it's value or maybe you were a victim of the Madoff scandal. But what really stands out for me is the way we all reached out for each other and kept on keeping on. Somehow our community felt more like a community.

The morning after Barak Obama was elected I went down to Coolidge Corner to do some errands and the air was electric with relief, joy, potential, pride. Everyone smiled at each other. Strangers talked about being proud to be an American again, finally. I went to the hardware store and someone was there asking about American flags, and this was someone who did not look like they had flown one for quite awhile. Young people saw a reason to be involved again, a hope that maybe there was something worth working towards or for. All that bad news that's been heaped upon us is not smothering us, it's a challenge. A call to arms. Our talents, strengths, skills, hard work and perseverance are needed and will have a channel to be funneled through.

We had some pretty momentous and heated debates on local issues too. Article 15 and the revolutionary concept that there was such a thing as too much parking was a teaching moment, one that seems to need to be repeated again as 2 Brookline Place enters the final phase of their permitting. I was thrilled and proud that Town Meeting passed it. The Article 13 debate was a low point. There seemed to be so many disingenuous sound bites, lack of real discourse and meaning....it just devolved to such a point I felt it wrong to even have a vote on it at that point. I have been working on a "Growing Smart" post ever since, stay tuned...

At the Minot Rose Garden we held a ribbon cutting, celebrating the installation of our fabulous, gorgeous fence, thanks to the Brookline Community Foundation, many donors and the Parks and Open Space division. It's always such a celebration of community to get together in the garden and express our gratitude and appreciation for all it brings to the neighborhood. On that score, our call for artists for our up coming art show at the Brookline Arts Center brought submissions from more than 60 artists. The caliber of the art was phenomenal and the show, coming up this February 9 - March 21 will be fantastic! I love the idea of getting all those artists together, who have the garden in common. I can't wait. Rose garden art in the dead of February.

Another highlight as far as I'm concerned was the creation of the town's Climate Action Committee. What a great, committed group of folks and we are just getting going! It's an honor to be a part of this effort, and while the subject of climate change is perhaps our greatest challenge as a species, it is a positive to be part of those seeking solutions and actions. It's nice too how with our new president and some very good new State legislation, (the Green Communities Act and the Global Warming Solutions Act), it feels like finally we will have the wind at our backs, all of us working towards the same goal. How long has it been since we've felt that way?

Brookline, like the rest of the country and the world has experienced a seismic shift, unlike anything I can remember, but rather than being a disaster, it feels like an opportunity to build a better, stronger community.

[where:02446]

Finding a Better Balance

Greetings. Sorry for the long absence, but like the rest of you, I have been both very busy and preoccupied with the cataclysmic changes roiling throughout the known universe. It is both a frightening and yet exciting time. Before the full magnitude of the "crisis" was made manifest, I was stopped in Coolidge Corner by someone with a BATV camera, who identified himself as someone from the TAB. He asked me to pontificate about how the financial crisis was playing out on 'main street', and more specifically, my house. Feeling somewhat cavalier at the moment, I opined about the opportunity for new ways of thinking and doing. How chaos frees us from complacency, in a sense because we do not have stability to lose by trying new things. I still believe that. I also believe that we must find new ways to do things, and as the ranks of those who have nothing left to lose grows and the threats from climate change mount the demand for change will swell into a tsunami. But enough of grand theories. Back to the home front.

I came here to write about what Dick Benka has characterized (in last Sunday's Globe article about our new Economic Development Director, Kara Brewton) as "one of the festering issues in town--the tension between development and the neighborhoods". Festering indeed. Boiling over might be more accurate. Neighbors have been driven to the extreme action of banding together, hiring a lawyer out of their own pockets and filing lawsuits. This has happened repeatedly. It might be easy to simply dismiss this as typical "nimbyism" or an unavoidable consequence of building in Brookline. But I don't think it is at all that simple, nor is it inevitable. Clearly there is a lack of honest dialogue and trust. We talk around the issues. We talk in sound bites and platitudes and everyone gets frustrated, thinking the other "side" simply doesn't listen or understand. Despite plenty of "process". Well guess what. It is every one's job to communicate in a new way to make themselves understood. To talk truth about what it is they are really concerned about and what's behind their motivations. That would be a good start.

These lawsuits can't be good for anyone involved. They cost the town money, eating up vast amounts of town staff time and effort. They create an unfavorable environment for development, causing a self-defeating situation for those who favor development, sending the message that it is especially difficult to build in Brookline and adding additional costs for project proponents. Costs that might have been directed more constructively towards amenities we truly value and invested in building the types of projects that will actually add value and benefits to the community beyond mere tax dollars. But more on that later.

As for those bringing the lawsuits, they don't seem to be having much success either, except perhaps making a very expensive point.

The reasons for this situation are complex and deeply rooted. But, one thing is for certain, regardless of your opinion or viewpoint on the subject, continuing on in the same way, holding dear to our entrenched "core beliefs" and willful compulsions will only lead to further conflict and more importantly for the future of Brookline, bad developments. At the very root of the problem is a focus on short term gain. The realities of real estate financing dictate this approach on the part of the land speculators and builders. This is to be expected. The problem is, the Town has fallen victim to this way of thinking as well. We have seen the ramifications of this modis operandi playing out in the financial crisis, and in fact the analogy to that situation offers some interesting insights. A few days ago we watched Alan Greenspan confess that his "theory of the way the world works had a fatal flaw", that in fact investment banks, left unregulated, did not act in a way that ensured their long term viability, let alone take into account the effects of their actions on the larger economy or the public in general. No kidding. In the same way, we cannot count on private developers to be thinking about the long term costs and benefits of their buildings on the community as a whole. That is a public sector job, our job. The point is, someone needs to do it.

Applied to planning and development decisions the impacts of this short term focus are multifarious. While no one would willfully choose to discourage a growth in Brookline's tax base, it is an open question whether or not the single-minded pursuit of commercial development (and housing development for that matter) at any cost is in fact going to have the desired effect in the long run. Why do I say this? Besides the immediate costs associated with lawsuits and ill will alluded to above, I maintain that there are substantial and numerous costs and long-term impacts attributable to new development that we are not accounting for that make the "accounting" a bit more ambiguous. In addition, there are many potential benefits and economic "generators" that could be included in new developments that would have long term, multiplier effects that are also not accounted for when assessing the "value" to the community of a given development. For instance, locally owned businesses contribute a far greater proportion of their income to the local economy both directly and through their communty intimacy and support of our many cultural and non-profit organizations. Mixed use development, near transit reduces the need for auto ownership and travel, engenders community interaction, fosters cultural engagement and is attractive to many young professionals, thus benefiting long term environmental quality, building community and increasing Brookline's relative attractiveness to new residents. It is, after all ultimately the future citizens of Brookline who determine her character, cultural capital and potential for innovation and adaptability. It is with these future citizens in mind that we must make all of our decisions.

Why is it that "substantial amounts of community process" fails to achieve the goal of community consensus and doesn't generate the hoped for feelings that we are furthering our shared civic goals? The principle problem with our Design Advisory Teams is the fact that they are concerned primarily with "design". As if all the questions about a particular development can be solved by changing the facade material. If we are lucky, we have talented architects on the DAT, but still, many fundamental issues about size, scale, use, function, public benefits, etc. have already been made, This is in fact and after-the-fact proposition, despite the fact that it happens before "formal applications have been made". This is because the legal parameters of what is allowed have already been determined, and as long as the developer adheres to these, they will be able to build what they want. The DAT can tweak the look of a building's facade and maybe, with a willing developer get a few more concessions, but ultimately it is all too late. The time to figure out how much of what type of development is desirable is well in advance, before someone has invested the time and money in coming up with a proposal. The community has not been involved adequately in making these fundamental decisions, in adequate detail. Here is where new thinking and dialogue is critical. Both "sides" must speak the truth with respect and a true desire to communicate and compromise.

Many of you are hanging your head and moaning now, saying, but we just went through that agonizingly long "planning process" to write our Comprehensive Plan, or the even more painful Coolidge Corner District Planning Council. But, our zoning does not implement key provisions of our Comprehensive Plan, and, as the CCDPC tried to address, it was not detailed enough. Many issues remain unresolved in terms of our current zoning, as it relates (or doesn't) to community goals. The evidence of this are the continuous efforts at amendment through Town Meeting Warrants, etc. On the commercial side, we need to re-evaluate the particulars of how our key commercial development parcels are zoned and what might result from their development as is. Then we need to engage in a highly interactive process of visioning about what we do want, using professional techniques that will engender problem solving and allow real solutions to emerge. (A key difference from what has been done thus far). What would benefit the community and still be potentially buildable from an economic stand point? The solutions will grow organically out of a deep understanding of our community. Not just the physical space, but the cultural and social interchanges that add vitality to life in Brookline. We need to identify the kinds of amenities that will attract new businesses, customers and residents. Asking ourselves questions such as: What kind of employment centers could possibly do well here? Are they the kind of developments we wish to see and can we comfortably accommodate them? If so, what can we do to encourage them? Are the benefits of employment within our borders worth an investment of this sort? How can we build on the vast capital of capable professionals who already live here, as well as existing businesses, such as the large number of design professionals living and working here?

For a case study, let's look at 111 Boylston St. With any development on Route 9 an immediate issue is traffic. Sadly, we lack the transportation planning capabilities to adequately assess the true impacts of a high intensity auto-oriented development like a medical office building (see my previous post Traffic: Route 9 and Beyond), let alone look into the system wide functioning of our transportation infrastructure. Suffice it to say, this development, in combination with general background traffic growth and additional regional development results in significant growth in traffic volumes. Delays will increase. Intersections that accommodate the required turn-arounds will fail. The upshot will be increased cut-through traffic on Walnut and Davis and other neighborhood streets. Increased pollution and accidents. Increased costs for roadway maintenance, police enforcement, health care, traffic calming and a decrease in both the quality of life and value of residential properties affected. Major transportation infrastructure improvements will be required, costing substantial sums. Any remaining roadway capacity that exists now will be "used up", making additional development of this type all the more difficult. All of these costs along with many others need to be carefully considered when weighing the value to the town of this development.

This is a commercial development, but it is unclear whether it will serve, employ or be owned by Brookline residents. We have not asked ourselves whether or not it makes sense to put this type of development here, or what other types of development might have made more sense. We relied on the "private market" to make this decision for us. Had a more thorough planning analysis been made, we could have tailored our zoning to encourage local businesses, or mixed uses, and have better defined an appropriate building mass, setting and public realm design. Such a design would better incorporate all new developments in the area into an overall scheme that takes the pedestrian and alternative transportation options into account. A more energy efficient building would also be more attractive to future tenants and have a longer life span in an energy scarce future. As we all know, the private market does not have our long-term community wide prosperity in mind. Nor does it take into account the "external costs" that are born by the public in general, Brookline taxpayers, or the nearby neighborhoods.

The impacts of the shadow caused by the height of the building is just one of the negative consequences brought about by a lack of forethought about the implications of re-zoning this and other parcels along Route 9 would have. The shadow is graphic and has a powerful immediacy, but is only a first order, direct impact. The neighbors' lawsuit is based on the notion that the Board of Appeals decision was "arbitrary and capricious". It was the Board's job to determine whether or not the Public Benefits given by the developer, in this case, some physical improvements for Davis Path and Boylston St. Park as well as a small cash contribution for the intersection improvement at Washington St. and High St. were, in fact adequate "compensation" for the increase in height allowed for the building. It is not necessarily that these public benefits were not well intentioned, nor that they are necessarily not actually good things for the town. But, those bringing the law suit have a point. The Board's decision was a forgone conclusion. The Board of Appeals had accepted the idea that the "benefit" of allowing the development outweighed any negative impacts articulated by the neighborhood residents. This despite the fact that one of the conditions of granting the special permit is that "the use as developed will not adversely affect the neighborhood." Left out of the Board's deliberations were the many more negative "externalities", some of which I have identified above.

But, the greatest negative of all is the opportunity cost of what we could have had! This structure, and others like it, such as 1285 Beacon for instance, will be with us for a long time. Traditional economic development strategies promulgate a view of the world where municipalities or regions are in competition for development investment dollars. In some cases these strategies go so far as to grant tax subsidies to lure development, almost always losing fiscally in the process. In our case, we simply grant the right to build on our few remaining precious parcels suitable for commercial development. In a similar vein we seem to believe that we must allow what, in some cases seems to be an excessively tall and massive building footprint, and an anything will do attitude in order to "attract" development. The claim is made that we must do this in order for the projects to be economically viable. I find this hard to believe. While we cannot simply "get the project of our dreams", I do believe that had we had a better idea of what we did want, and what would be appropriate, before a proposal was on the table, a much better and still economically viable project could have been negotiated.

The fact that these projects are proceeding in these extremely difficult times and that housing values are holding their own and perhaps even still rising, testifies to the fact of Brookline's continued desirability as a place to live and do business. We are selling our selves short. It could have been so much better. Clarity of purpose, coupled with a deep understanding of Brookline's unique character and the characteristics that make it so, a reverence for her value, a vision of a workable future and top notch design adherence could go a long way towards achieving the goal of more appropriate development.

I know many of you will simply write me off as naive at this point, but I have seen countless examples of quality begetting quality. And we are quality, at least we were, and we are in danger of losing it. By knowing what we want, being clear and specific about it, demanding it, we will get it. In fact, this clarity would be a relief to all involved, including developers. The endless, nebulousness of our "process" could be shortened, with clearer guidelines allowing the initial proposal to be both closer to the ultimate goal and responsive to the particulars of the site. I am painting a picture here where, any future developments are in fact more in tune with Brookline's spirit, culture, physical layout and sustainability goals. Achieving this is what we need to do to make the process work, because it surely is not working now. It is a fundamental change in approach that will in fact require a commitment of resources, some new planning techniques and a willingness to be open to new ways of thinking. Being known throughout the region as the place to find, build and buy into a quality built environment that supports a vibrant forward-thinking community is what will ensure our long term prosperity. We need only value ourselves adequately, not giving in to the least common denominator. We are desirable enough to be in the position to demand the best. This will only have a synergistic beneficial effect, attracting new, progressive builders and residents, and therefore truly begetting economic development.
[where:02446]

What would Olmsted do?

Once again we have been reminded about the staggering import of the work of F.L.Olmsted, his sons and the landscape architecture firm he established and ran from his home and workshop here in Brookline. Luckily for us, Olmsted's handiwork is abundantly present in our own environment. On Sunday, September 7th the National Park Service and the Organization of American Historians hosted a stimulating panel discussion at the Arnold Arboretum featuring four scholars: Charles Beveridge, Editor of the Olmsted Papers Project; Ethan Carr, Landscape Historian, University of Virginia; Alexander Garvin; Architect and Planner, Yale University and Delores Hayden, Urban Historian and Architect, Yale University.

Their charge had been to discuss ways to better utilize the vast archives of materials currently being cataloged as part of the Fairsted renovation project, as well as envision ways to engage the public both on and off site to engender a better understanding and appreciation for Olmsted's vision, values, skills, and perspective. They had many fascinating ideas. Not surprisingly, a rallying call was raised to digitize the plans and photos, etc. relating to all 6,000 projects. Ethan Carr suggested a Wiki style gathering of feedback on all those projects whose fate or status remain unknown.

Charles Beveridge spoke eloquently about the shear genius of Olmsted's talents. How his attention to detail and understanding of human perception, psychology, everyday life, patterns of behavior and their relation to landscape and spatial relationships all coalesced to help him create not landscapes but rather forms that built a structure for the life of the city to fill in around them. Olmsted's designs incorporate a deep understanding of what humans find beautiful in nature and offer a variety of experiences and views, paced at a perfect rhythm. Even just one of his well thought out ideas, such as the separation of modes when designing pathways, still have lessons for us today.

Delores Hayden wanted to give visitors to Fairsted an understanding that this was the "Place where their place was created" A kind of Meta understanding. Could the site somehow communicate the transformation that occurred as Olmsted's parks were being built? An era that saw our cities go from crowded, dirty, fetid places to more spread out and breathable habitats. Could we explain the massive and cascading impact on the development of the American landscape and our suburbs that Olmsted had. What was the actual site work like while the parks were being created? The hundreds and hundreds of men with shovels it took to move the earth. How about the technologies of the office. The hand drawing and model building, the pace of life, the hand correspondence. All evoke the cultural gestalt and bring to life the realities of Olmsted's achievements.

But Delores really grabbed my imagination when she raised the challenge of finding ways to interpret and communicate Olmsted's work in both the political and social context of its day and to encourage visitors to consider how current day political attitudes and realities differ. What do these differences say about us as a people and our views about public benefit vs. private gain? While there seems to be universal admiration, gratitude and enjoyment of Olmsted's parks, why is it so hard to make public investments today?

Ethan Carr spoke about Olmsted's ideological legacy and also called for interpretation. Our modern world is much more crowded. It is not necessarily a given that green space or access to nature is a necessity. Is there a "Public" for which to speak and plan for in the same way it was conceived of in Olmsted's time? He opined that government could no longer be counted on to provide parks or maintain them, thus the rise of multitudinous "Friends of " groups and stellar groups like the Central Park Conservancy.

There seems to be a lack of understanding in the fact that, when done well, public projects such as parks, civic spaces, public transportation, art, infrastructure, civic buildings of grand eloquence, and a cohesive well designed public realm, elevate the culture, spirit, energy and economy of the entire enterprise of the city. Despite the fact that over and over again we see the beneficial effects, in both direct (escalating property values near new transit lines or parks, etc.) and less direct ways (increased cultural activities, in-migration of young new talent, attraction of more creative property developers and employers, etc.).

Coincidentally enough, an intriguing article appeared in the Ideas section of Sunday's Boston Globe, entitled "Growth Factor: How Big Government Helps the Economy Take Off". A carefully documented presentation of the evidence that, despite the commonly held belief to the contrary, the size of government and high taxes do not slow a nation's economic growth. In depth study of other rich, high-tax countries revealed a higher standard of living as well as robust and growing economies. A cursory reflection on our health care crisis and lack of affordable day care to take two items will illustrate why this might be so. In fact, the article states that, "contrary to the romantic claims about the nation's laissez-faire past, American history is a story of government intervening, time and again, to support growth." But I digress.

After the panelists made their presentations members of the audience were invited to respond, making comments or asking questions. A lively flow of ideas followed. When I spoke, I first described my personal experience of being a researcher at the archives and what a thrill it was to view the actual plans in the very place they were created by the Olmsted firm. The totality of the experience was truly awe inspiring. It was a privilege. Then, I stated my interest in the challenge of interpreting Olmsted's legacy in a wider context of landscape history and planning, politics and public policy. I suggested that as we face planning and design questions we should ask ourselves, "What would Olmsted do?"

I am quite sure that his thinking would have evolved and he would have new and ingenious solutions to the modern concerns of climate change and non-renewable energy dependence. Of course we can't really know what he would do today, it's a bit like speculating on what Jimi Hendrix's music might sound like today had he lived. We know it would have been original and musical, but what would it sound like?

I do know that had Olmsted not grown disillusioned or cynical, he would still believe in the benefits of access to nature and the cultural benefits of public gathering places. He would have advanced his thinking in terms of environmentally sensitive site design. Transportation would have become more of an issue. The devastating environmental, social, health and economic impacts of suburban sprawl were not something Olmsted foresaw. How would his designs have evolved to adapt? His was a holistic perspective and I am sure he would have sought ways to engender life that better integrated people with their environment and each other along with ways to meet their daily mobility needs without automobile dependency.

In the current era, public investment for the civitas is made evident in those places that respond to the challenge of climate change by adopting innovative policies to encourage/mandate energy efficient building and design, alternative transportation, support for renewable energy, etc. will be the places that prosper. It is a feedback mechanism. These types of initiatives insure the ability to adapt and survive into the future and offer a roost for those looking for an optimistic place to pursue their own contribution to society.

To begin the process of interpretation of the archives, I asked the panelists if Olmsted every expressed concern or dissatisfaction with the shift of his work from large scale public projects to wealthy private estates. Their answers differed. Charles Beveridge talked about the purity of Olmsted's design objectives and his belief that they were worth doing as examples of "good design and techniques" for their illustrative status which could be adapted and copied by homeowners across the country. Delores Hayden said that Olmsted definitely had regrets and was greatly concerned about the shift in focus of his work, preferring instead to see a broader public have access to the product of his efforts.

In speaking to Delores Hayden afterwards, I was able to convey my admiration for her work to her. She told me she wanted to get a tee-shirt that said "What would Olmsted do?"


[where: 02446]