One of the things that gets slippery when the discussion turns to density — and, if it’s a good discussion, it ought to — is the meaning of “appropriate density” or similar phrases. There are very few people who say, “No density in Newton!” Rather, most people at least acknowledge that Newton ought to have some more multi-family housing, but hedge on where and of what type and where. “It needs to match the character of the neighborhood.”
I’d like to propose a simple test to determine whether or not you align as pro-density or not-so-pro-density: do you think that most, if not all, villages ought to have multiple 5-stories buildings.
Does that question capture the essence of the debate?
Sean says:
The litmus test you propose is too blunt an instrument to get at what added density is truly “appropriate.” I highly recommend a much more nuanced and sophisticated approach adopted by the state’s Chapter 40B Design Review Handbook.
What if I don’t think 5-story buildings would fit in except in village centers but would be happy to see our villages have multiple triple deckers/3-family houses? A litmus test that says you have to be happy to see 5-story apartment buildings all over the city creates a false dichotomy.
Why 5? Why not 6? Why not 7? Wouldn’t more be always better?
This is the wrong question to be asking. More appropriate is considering the extent to which Newton’s zoning laws should unnecessarily tie the hands of property owners in disposing of their possessions as they see fit.
I wouldn’t want to make a blanket statement on how many stories should be in each village.
I do believe we need more housing, to allow young families to move here and seniors to stay here once they are ready to downsize and living without too many stairs, and to keep Newton’s diversity.
But each building must fit into what’s around it. I would not want a five story building to be built where to the right and left and in the back we have single family houses.
If the lot is large enough, it could be tiered, from possibly 5 going down to 3 stories where it meets – say – with two family building. In other instances maybe a stretch of public greenery would be an acceptable buffer. It also matters – IMO – which way most of the directly impacted single family houses face – i.e. where are the living room views – would they directly face the facade of the new construction or would they be perpendicular?
I really think that we need a vision for each village; created by city planners, residents and developers together, where each group’s concerns get heard and a compromise reached that works for all, and then zoning should be adapted to meet the needs to implement it.
FWIW, at bit off topic – I was impressed with this video – http://www.nnchamber.com/news/WashingtonSt, especially with the vision for the street changes, which ties in with what could/should be built in the future alongside that stretch. I’ve seen the parking/bike way option in action in Cambridge and I would very much welcome such changes in Newton.
I should add that my comment above is in reference to development of village centers (those close to public transport) only.