Moving back to the north side of the city, Jim Morrison from the TAB reports on what sounds like a crowded and, at times, heated public input session about the to-be-designed Austin Street development. I did not attend so I can’t comment on what transpired, but maybe someone else can…
*You’ll have to read the story to understand the rather lame Bingo reference.
Setti is wasting everyone’s time at this point. It’s time to level with Newton residents. What is the plan for this Austin St. development?
Bingo seems apt. If the comments from the mayor about starting from scratch and wanting input are true, and I think they may be, the project seems to be going in the right direction. Other meetings about Austin Street have turned into shouting matches so the town wanting to do a presentation without comments is understandable, particularly since anyone, including the owner of the yoga studio, could post concerns on the boards. I walk past the parking lot daily and have seen it about 70% full but never full. If Shaws actually prohibits parking, things will change. In the now defunct proposals, part of the lot would be available during construction so hopefully that will be the case.
The most important thing I learned is that every two months the manager of Shaws throws people out of their lot, but I don’t know how that could be factored into a parking study.
I just read the article to understand the Bingo reference. Not too lame. In fact this is a common method of collecting information in Agile (and other) project planning processes. Get all of the inputs from people on post-it notes, collect and group them and then prioritize to tackle the most important items first. One advantage of this method is the reduction in duplicate statements without losing the number of references to the similar concerns. I hope the method becomes more common.
Do people really park in the Shaws lot and go somewhere other than Shaws? It would never have occurred to me to do that.
Yes, Greg. Yes they do.
It’s commonly used method of collecting information in the NPS. The shouters and the more reticent each receive the same number of dots (input). It works quite well because it provides everyone an opportunity to contribute equally.
The post-its could have some validity, especially if they are actually studied and categorized and counted as from distinct writers. Unfortunately, they don’t promote deep thinking about the subject. And they could be very biased because the people who self-select to attend these meetings may not be representative of the whole Newton population.
The dots are just a silly kindergarten exercise that lends itself to easy skewing of results. As an example, suppose the audience is peppered with developers who might not live in Newton, but who could have a vested financial interest in community polls here. They might put all their dots on the housing category to influence that category’s prioritization to be sure they get the chance to develop multi-unit housing in Newton, even if the majority of residents might want more retail opportunities to increase the tax base and decrease the residential tax burden. The residents might spread their dots across all the attractive categories (Who wants bad design? Who doesn’t want public amenities? Who doesn’t want housing for techies/seniors? Who wants an inferior streetscape? Who doesn’t worry about parking? Who doesn’t want thriving retail corridors to meet local needs and to share that tax burden? ) So the results get skewed and nobody realizes that the dotted boards are not what they might seem to be.
Surely better polling can take place. Polling that involves thinking about the problem and listening to the residents/taxpayers concerns and taking them seriously. We have an annual census. The right questions asked by the City’s own census just might take the public’s pulse more accurately. If, indeed, that is what is wanted.
There are plenty of case studies of effective community planning processes, of which Fruitvale Station is my favorite. Interestingly, in the case the community opposed the transit authority’s plans for a parking garage and advocated successfully for a mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Among the lessons learned for the project:
Fruit for thought.
With the number of other large housing projects being recently proposed (Rowe St, Turtle Lane, Wells Ave, and Riverside) this seems like a good time to reassess plans for Austin St. How many large scale housing complexes do we need, and since we are not being approached by a 40B, we can explore other options.
My Bingo reference was not intended to jumpstart a discussion about process. I started the thread in response to a request. Did anybody actually attend the meeting?
Not that there’s anything wrong with discussing process!
I was the one that asked for the thread, so I’ll give my 2 cents. I was at the meeting. It was well organized for what it was, except for the fact that they ran out of packets to hand out. I appreciate the desire to get community feedback, but this felt like a “restart”. We’ve been at this for 5 years or more, and I’ve been at multiple meetings just like the one we had. So now we’ve picked a “developer”. Wait, all the pain over the past two years was just to pick the developer? What was the point of having them submit projects then? What has the very distinguished committee for? Why such detail given to the various aspects of the specific proposals? Seriously, if this is how new projects get built in Newton, I wonder why any sane developer participates. So we issue a RFP with very specific guideposts, drawn from multiple meetings with the pubic, and now we get to…talk to just one developer about a project that has no guideposts? Huh?
As for the meeting, a few facts struck me as important. One, how many people who attended who wanted something built there. Lots of conversations with folks saying…”the parking lot is nice, but it would be a whole lot nicer if we did…”. And lots of housing advocates, especially affordable housing advocates were there to support at least some portion of the project being affordable.
What surprised me was this….they announced a parking study. And the results seemed clear to me, and after reviewing it online, I’d like to point it out for all of the opponents. The lot is underutilized. What was most striking was the use….40% of those questioned said they were getting “coffee!” 20% said they were going to Yoga! And that is with a lot that is only 70% used!
So basically we are keeping the lot there for folks to get their starbucks fix (or the Taste fix I guess)…and yoga. The Yoga didn’t strike me as possible but it makes sense. In fact the yoga studio owner (who was there and very aggressive in her objections to the meeting) admitted that the one outlier to the study (a day with very high usage of the lot) was due to her hosting a “master class” at her studio.
I’m all in favor of the Yoga studio existing in the village. But I personally think that one business should not dictate the use of the parking lot. The Yoga studio owner acts as if the parking lot is a guaranteed community benefit to her business, instead of what it really is, a public lot. If she wanted guaranteed rights to parking, she could have opened her business in a location with a privately owned lot. I also wonder if when zoning approval was granted for a basement yoga studio, she made clear to the city how many spaces she’d be requiring. Did she ask for a variance? I’m very sympathetic to the various business concerns, but if the meeting did one thing for me it explained why the yoga studio has been such a opponent to ANY plans for the Austin Street Lot….because they benefit from that lot more than ANYONE else!
Besides that, I was struck by the lost opportunity for Newtonville. The combined walnut street/Austin street redo has been postponed, and the talks of wider sidewalks, antique lighting, plantings, and benches seems rather diminished at this point. With no leadership from the city, all we may end up with is a scaled down project and a scaled down walnut street. But hey, the yoga studio and starbucks patrons will have easy parking where no one has to walk more than 20 feet….
@Gail: You brought up Bingo, an obvious reference to “process” (or what I believe is kindergarten arts and crafts). Adults can be given assignments and can learn and can present ideas. They can even argue them intelligently. Our justice system is adversarial and is the best thing we have going for getting at that lofty concept (justice). Why not have real debates, attended and/or televised that pit articulate well-informed people on opposite sides of every concept that you want to be accepted by the public? Pull off the gloves. Ask the real questions aloud. In an ideal world (read, with unlimited funds)what would people like to see on Austin Street?
By the way, I was there, too!
I spoke with all three Ward 2 aldermen at the meeting. Not one of them had been consulted about the format or the “process” for the meeting. I think that shows a remarkable lack of political savvy on the part of the administration. Especially since two of the three are very much invested in having this lot redeveloped and have put themselves out there as supporters. One of them even served on the “distinguished” evaluation committee. #FAIL
Fig – I agree with everything you said, except that I don’t see this step as going back to square one. The Dot Exercise is one of many ways of collecting data about what people think. It’s especially useful at a meeting where extremely vocal people are in a position to silence other voices. This project should not be determined by a Starbucks or the owner of a yoga studio, and my bet is that it won’t be. While I did not attend this meeting, if there’s a grain of truth to the Tab article the owner of the yoga studio did herself no favors.
Jane, the dot exercise is puerile. It gives the organizers pretty posters with red dots, but offers no unbiased real information to the meeting’s leaders. Ask people to rank-order the categories and turn them in to the meeting organizers. That would be less open to bias. Ask people to add categories not there. (Are the categories exhaustive as given?) Tell them that they can eliminate a category if they believe it is far less important than the rest of the list. But, dots are pretty and kids like to make pretty pictures.
Glad they didn’t hand out thumb tacks
Sally – It’s one method of collecting data that was used once, and one that’s commonly used at business, community, and school meetings for years. The CAG used it at one meeting and no one complained. I have no idea why people are over focusing on this strategy other than that the people who oppose the project try every little thing into a major deal. It’s become a silly distraction to the process and time to move on.
I actually took the time to read each of the candidate statements before voting for the Waban Area Council and voted for you. We have enough people on the BOA and SC who think that we all need a talking to (or should I say, need to be talked down to) – we don’t need Area Council members to join the chorus.
On my way out the door, and wrote too fast-
line 2: “that has been used for years…”
line 6: “…try to turn every little thing into a major deal.”
Jane: so glad you voted for me. But, I still have a right to an opinion. Just because a method of community “herding” has been developed and utilized frequently, that doesn’t give it scientific validity. For the record, I am not opposed to development at Austin Street and I am not talking down to you. I am insulted that the techniques being used to ensure community input are childish and not at all statistically meaningful or informative. Perhaps it is the illusion that they are meaningful and informative that angers and disappoints me. I have more faith in people’s abilities to think and take positions. Debate is informative. Especially when opposing debaters have studied the issue and prepared a reasoned and cogent argument. You can then agree or disagree with one side. You can do so politely. But you are then doing so intelligently, not with some notion that community information has been gathered, when in fact only meaningless dots have been placed on posters. I am certain that every person in the room for that meeting was at least a high school graduate, probably of the Newton School system at that. My experience with my three kids, all adult graduates of that system, is that they could have understood and participated in a more adult evening than was presented at Newton North. If anyone was talking down to the community, it was the organizers, whom I know to be intelligent and creative people who can and should do better than that. By the way, thanks for voting for me. But, more importantly, thanks for reading the candidate statements to make an informed decision.
Sally – I’m not questioning your right to an opinion. I expect a difference of opinions, but you were not polite or respectful to those who expressed just that – a difference of opinion about the process at one public meeting. Some people, including me, commented that the process was commonly used in meetings and can be an effective tool. The CAG, a highly respected committee in the city, used the very same process, but of course, they were Very Special People. Not like the rest of us, who don’t understand that the process was “puerile”.
Yes, I voted for you after reading your statement because it appeared you would listen to differing views respectfully at a time when respectful listening was in short supply in Waban. Your comment on this blog was directed at an individual – one who will not be voting for you again, no matter what kind of statement you write.
Jane, Quote 1: “We have enough people on the BOA and SC who think that we all need a talking to (or should I say, need to be talked down to) – we don’t need Area Council members to join the chorus.”
Jane, Quote 2: “you were not polite or respectful to those who expressed just that – a difference of opinion about the process at one public meeting”
Sallee’s answer: If calling placing red dot stickers on a poster “puerile” is disrespectful, then I am totally guilty. Losing your support because you think I have been disrespectful to you is unfortunate, since I hold no ill feelings toward you for your difference of opinion on how community input could be more effectively gathered. On the other hand, I can use a vacation from the countless hours I spend on City matters at City meetings (on your behalf, if you live in Waban and voted for me) for no salary, no benefits and now a proposed gag order, too!
Hey, Sally, you think I haven’t put in some serious volunteer hours in this city? No one makes me do it and no one makes you do it either. I was merely cautioning you to tone down your language because yes, calling an expressed opinion from a specific individual puerile is disrespectful.
Dear Jane:
Please re-read my comment. I never called you or your expressed opinion “puerile.” I said: “Jane, the dot exercise is puerile.” I highly value community input and believe that the dot exercise offers very little to no insight into what a community is being asked to value. Mechanisms that can elicit the most useful information about what a gathered community thinks ought to be used by project planners. Here is my thinking:
1.)First, let us assume that the dots on the poster method is chosen.
150 people are each asked to place zero to ten dots in total on any of 8 posters labeled with the following development categories: parking, traffic, housing, design, public amenities, streetscape, retail, and other (as was done last week). Now, suppose that
50 people strongly think that a project should have retail businesses as a component of the proposal and 100 people strongly think that a project should not have retail businesses as a component of the proposal. All 150 people each put 10 dots on the retail poster as per last week’s exercise at Newton North. The result: There are 1500 dots on the retail poster that offer little information about people’s wishes or desires, except that they have given a high priority to the issue of retail. No conclusion about whether the community supports or rejects retail can be drawn.
2.)Let us now assume that the same people are given a questionnaire that asks whether they believe a project should or should not include retail as a component. 50 answer “Should.” 100 answer “Should not.” The result: Information that is more useful has been gathered that more accurately reflects community opinion.
My belief in community input drives my actions. I think getting as much information as possible to and from individuals at the Village level is difficult and requires hard work, which I am willing to do because I believe that visions, when shared and cooperatively developed, produce the most successful and pleasant society for us all.