I’m not often home to catch “Greater Boston” on WGBH, so it was extra nice to hear a familiar voice Monday night, as city councilor Emily Norton was one of Jim Braude’s guests to talk about Boston’s second ‘once in a generation’ flood this season, as director of the Massachusetts chapter of the Sierra Club. The other guest was Richard McGuinness, deputy director for climate change and environmental planning at the Boston Planning & Development Agency (formerly the BRA). I don’t think it was meant to be a debate, but Emily seemed much more in command than Mr. McGuinness, who had a bit of a Rick Perry moment when pressed by Jim Braude on why Boston wasn’t making better building standards mandatory instead of voluntary.
Also worth reading the March 3 Washington Post article that Braude found so compelling, where Norton warns that “Boston will return to its historic boundary lines,” if more isn’t done to reduce fossil fuel consumption, as opposed to spending billions on seawalls.
For those of you who have not yet watched the video, I have a quiz. Who said this? Our own Emily Norton, Jim Braude, or the supposedly not as much in command Richard MacGuiness?
Watch the video. It’s only 9:50.
But, if you can’t, here’s the answer: not uber-environmentalist Emily, but bumbling — but so, so right — MacGuinness.
Emily Norton is getting on your television to talk about how to mitigate climate change at the local level and she’s not advocating for increased density, the single most effective thing that municipalities can do to reduce carbon emissions.
It should be a scandal that Emily is using her position as a state environmental leader (she’s the Chapter Director of the state chapter of the Sierra Club) to distort the climate change debate to suit her local political interests.
Bonus question, who said this?
I think it’s your job, Councilor Norton.
What Sean said.
Some days it seems like there are two Emily Norton.
There’s the Sierra Club’s Norton: An articulate environmental advocate who deftly points to the hypocrisy of state and municipal leaders for claiming to care about climate change and other environmental issues but failing to act.
When we see her on TV or quoted in the Washington Post we should all be extremely proud that she lives here and represents our city.
Except, then there’s City Councilor Norton: More than any of her colleagues, Norton has lead the opposition to smart growth, multi-family housing in Newton — something that would do far more to combat climate change than anything else within her political power.
I just don’t get it.
Here is a map of flood zones in Newton. In regards to Newton, is there anything the city could prepare for? For example, in the northern section on the Charles river… could houses really be affected? There is the blue heron bridge over there and its hard to see how flooding could affect the homes
heres the link: if Newton flood zones
https://github.com/NewtonMAGIS/GISData/blob/master/FEMA%20Flood%20Zones/FEMAFloodZones.geojson
I want to take it a step further, Greg.
Councilor Norton has earned, justifiably, a position of leadership on environmental issues, including climate change. But, if she’s speaking as a state leader on environmental issues and not focusing on the role of density to mitigate climate change, then she is distorting the state dialogue in service to her narrow local concerns.
That’s a serious problem.
I think we need better education on why multi-family housing in Newton helps the environment. Explain why even though the immediate environment looks less green (more people, more buildings, less open space if you build on a golf course, etc) the larger environment is more green when you build on a golf course in a denser area than when you build on farm land or forests farther away from jobs and stores.
The farther apart people are from their work, hospitals, schools, and shops, the more driving and the worse for the environment.
Lucia is spot on.
I’ll make it even simpler. Any new housing within a quarter-mile of the Newtonville rail station is within a quarter mile of car-free transit into Boston and within a quarter-mile of a grocery store and drug store and Starbucks and …
That’s a lot of trip avoidance.
Sean,
Using Newtonville rail as an example, I would suggest first getting a commitment from MBTA to make the rail more accessible. Would love love love to ditch the car but the rail schedules are unworkable. No weekends and really inflexible schedules outside rush hour, plus its not exactly cheap compared to the T
Would love to see Washington street from Newtonville to West Newton developed with 4-5 story condos with retail below. Would probably require opening a new school to handle the overflow though and its very unclear if retail would actually survive..
Totally agree regarding regional rail. See this.
The current situation in Newtonville doesn’t support a car-free existence for all (though there are some that do it), but Newtonville, like all neighborhoods in Newton near transit are both the likeliest to benefit from improved transit and the best to support a life of reduced car trips now.
You may not be able to ditch your car in Newtonville, but it would certainly be idle more of the time!
Thank you for posting the video and the article, Julia! Especially in the wake of these storms it’s good to see these issues getting more prominence.
To the commenters on this thread, I just want to point out…
Solar canopies at the library;
Municipal aggregation aka Newton Power Choice;
Plastic Bag Ban;
Polystyrene Ban;
Electrifying city vehicle fleet;
100% Renewable Resolution;
Fossil Fuel Divestment;
Carbon Pricing Resolution…
Sooooooo many clean energy/environmental issues I have led on or taken a leadership role on, and none of you had a word to say about it.
Even when it comes to development…
Reducing the number of parking spaces per unit;
Requiring free/reduced transit passes;
Requiring electric vehicle charging;
Not a word from this crowd.
Even when it comes to affordability…
Requiring more studio’s so that even the market rate units are more affordable.
Requiring more commercial units as part of the mix, so that the projects actually net positive for Newton, and our low and middle income residents are not subsidizing them.
On ALL of those issues, nary a word from any of you. No one is willing to push back on the developers at all. Which is exactly the same problem that the City of Boston is facing.
I do not assume that wealthy profit driven developers are putting the public good front and center. I assume they are putting profit front and center, which is their role. But helping private developers maximize their profits is not my job.
The profit driven developer in the White House, many people in Newton have a problem with. But the profit driven developers here in Newton can do no wrong, and should never be asked to do anything differently than what they’re already planning?
The Austin St developer said he couldn’t do EVEN ONE MORE affordable unit… and then thanks to Amy Sangiolo he did SIX MORE.
Where were all of you? Why weren’t you pushing him to do more?
We are soon going to be voting on a development proposed for Ward 1, with 50+ units, all but 13 are affordable.
So we know it’s possible to get more affordable units as a proportion of development.
What is really going on? Because for me it does not compute, this blind allegiance to the developer community and unwillingness to push back on them.
Councilor Norton: Your comments would carry more credibility if you had joined Councilor Sangiolo that night by voting yes on Austin Street once she had secured more affordable units. Instead you wouldn’t even talk to one of your fellow ward councilors after she joined Sangiolo by voting yes.
And your comments would be more credible if you had any record advocating for smart growth, high density projects in Newton. Yes, we absolutely need more affordable housing. But we also need more market rate, high density transit oriented housing for climate change-combating and other reasons.
Unless you’re proposing only building taxpayer-funded housing, “profit driven developers” are the only way we’re meet our housing needs. You should be leading an effort to work to with developers, your colleagues and residents to make smart growth a reality, rather than leading the obstructionists as you have.
When Richard McGuinness called for more transit-oriented development and less sprawl on “Greater Boston”, you had a chance to nod in agreement, just as you’ve had other chances to be a champion of this issue statewide and in Newton.
Why didn’t and don’t you?
Emily,
Please, continue to fight the “good fight” against developers. But, please know that your efforts are 180 degrees in opposition to your stated environmental objectives. Developers are not only not the problem, they are critical to climate change solutions. Critical.
Your populist rhetoric completely undermines your credibility as a steward of the planet.
Also, you may have exceeded your V14 quota of strawpeople in your comment.
@Sean and @Greg – So private developers are always right? About everything? I’m not seeing any response to my question.
@Councilor Norton: Of course not. And it’s entirely appropriate for our city councilors to seek maximum benefit for the city during the process (as Councilor Sangiolo did) which is different from being an obstructionist to every project in your ward.
So now, perhaps you will answer my quesiton and that is: Why isn’t the Sierra Club Director a visible advocate for more transit-oriented development and less sprawl in Massachusetts and in Newton?
@Greg – I make decisions as a Newton City Councilor based on what I think is best for my constituents. Sometimes that entails pushing back on profit seeking developers. You might think a development comprising $3-4K/month rental units and a 200+ car parking garage, even though it’s next to public transit, “transit oriented development”, but I think by pushing back we can get a better deal for the City’s taxpayers, for affordable housing, and for the environment.
I’m still waiting to hear on when you’ve ever pushed back on a private developer in any way, shape or form. I only see you carrying water for them. I think they’re pretty capable of doing that for themselves.
@Councilor Norton: My day job is to advocate for the economic and cultural vitality of our region. My views are in sync.
On the other hand, you’re the Massachusetts Sierra Club director and an elected city councilor who has been sounding the climate change alarm statewide (and with that Washington Post story, nationwide).
Yet you have yet to explain why transit oriented housing density — a position that seems to be universally accepted by environmentalists across the board other than you — isn’t on the otherwise respected list of remedies you champion or cite as part of the solution.
Why?
And please don’t respond again by saying “sometimes” the projects need pushback. Of course they do. But that doesn’t explain why you fail to take a leadership position on making these projects better, as opposed to universally opposing them.
Why?
As a reminder, the developer community came pretty close to changing our local form of government in order to make it easier for them to make a profit here… so I really don’t think anyone should be feeling too badly for them.
Emily,
Given your historical (lack of) responsiveness to our questions, I’m not going to recognize a right to have all your questions answered, but I’ll bite on that last one.
Who says private developers are always right? I mean seriously, you don’t mean to suggest that everyone who is pro-development is in the uncritical thrall of developers, do you? Talk about your strawperson.
Good news, you can check the record. Ask your colleagues, I have been strongly in favor of various proposed projects, most notably Chestnut Hill Square, Riverside, and 129 Wells Ave. In all three cases, I adamantly pushed for various, significant constraints on the project, in the case of CHS, fighting hard against the changes to Route 9.
And, you do your colleagues a grave disservice by suggesting that they just roll over for developers. Some of the most pro-development councilors are also regularly pushing for meaningful, costly changes to development. Yes, sometimes someone like Amy can extract an extra concession that no one else got, but it’s a team effort.
You see, it’s possible to recognize that development is good for Newton (and, as we’re now learning, the planet), recognize that a willing developer is kind of a key requirement for new development, and also be sophisticated enough to know that what the developer proposes can be negotiated in favor of the greater good of the city.
I feel like you’re avoiding the issue — and have been for months. Density is urgently required to mitigate the effects of climate change. Any environmentalist who is not also a NIMBY has embraced that reality. Instead of going on the record to say that development is urgently required (and alienate your local base) or go on the record as being anti-development (and risk your hard-earned environmental cred), you seem to want to shift the conversation to a populist argument that developers are evil.
But, Greg and I and others are on to you. You can’t build without builders. And, municipalities are fully capable of balancing the needs of developers (which have to be addressed to make sure stuff gets built) and the needs of the community. With your anti-developer screeds, you reveal yourself as being fundamentally on the wrong side of the density issue.
Or, to put it as a question I suspect you won’t answer: doesn’t the reality of climate change require us to build more housing in Newton, a city that is a stone throw from our region’s commercial hub and a city with more than its share of transit nodes?
If the answer is yes, let’s work together to create lots of opportunities for new development and make sure that the development meets our needs.
If the answer is no, be prepared for regular criticism on the inconsistency of your advocacy.
“As a reminder, the developer community came pretty close to changing our local form of government in order to make it easier for them to make a profit here… so I really don’t think anyone should be feeling too badly for them.”
If nothing else, your hyperbolic, take-no-prisoners rhetoric never ceases to amuse.
I want to know why you (Emily) are not actively promoting more development.
Emily Norton on March 6, 2018 at 4:50 pm
“As a reminder, the developer community came pretty close to changing our local form of government in order to make it easier for them to make a profit here… so I really don’t think anyone should be feeling too badly for them.”
Emily, you can continue to say that the charter commission proposal was driven by developers, but matter how many times you repeat that lie, it will never be true.
The 9 elected members of the charter commissioners had lived in Newton for a cumulative 315 years (35 years on average). In total, they had had leadership roles in 59 different Newton-based non-profits, boards or commissions. One former Board of Aldermen president, one former school committee chair, the pastor emeritus of the Myrtle Baptist Church, to name three. Please stop slandering these dedicated community servants with your unsubstantiated claims about corruption and selling Newton out to developers. I expect more from an elected official than that.
Councilor Norton, your comments regarding the comprehensive, transparent work of a dedicated Charter Commission are unfounded and insulting. I was honored to be elected by the citizens of Newton to serve with a group of honest, committed people who deliberated for 18 months with integrity and personal sacrifice.
You dishonor the role of a City Councilor with your wreckless and untrue rhetoric.
@Sean and @Greg: Do you have nothing better to do than to go after Emily Norton for her incredible work fighting for the environment – not only in her role on the Sierra Club but also in her role as City Councilor? Let’s look at some of our other City Councilors who have an opportunity to push for a resolution to move the City towards 100% Renewable Energy sooner – rather than later – but feel that putting forth bold target dates – hurts rather than helps move the needle forward.
Building dense housing isn’t the only thing to help ameliorate the impacts of climate change – particularly building dense housing projects in flood zones – as what is happening in Boston. Who pays for the bulk of the storm damage? Do you think flood insurance covers all of those waterfront developments? I can tell you first hand from having worked on then Senator John Kerry’s Flood Insurance Reform bill back in the 1990s that the bulk of the damage was put on the taxpayers. Yes – those waterfront developments that few enjoy – cost the taxpayers millions of dollars when storms – like our most recent N’oreaster and other 100 year storms that occur every other year happen.
Let’s divest from fossil fuels. Let’s give Newton homeowners and business owners an incentive to compost organics and let’s make it easier for all of Newton – condos and businesses to recycle. Let’s demand the State to INVEST in public transportation because the transportation that exists now is neither not reliable nor is it accessible.
@Rhanna: Was it this same Dan Fireman that donated the most money to the YES on Charter Commission? https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/s/gdczf/17-massachusetts-billionaires-make-forbes-2018-list?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=weather&utm_campaign=alert. I believe our Charter Commission did a lot of good work but they failed because they came in with their own pre-conceived notions on “What is best” for our community and the voters of Newton said “No”.
@ Amy: It is precisely because Councilor Norton is a state and local environmental leader that I feel it’s appropriate to ask her to explain how her NIMBY housing policies jive with her environmental leadership.
But she won’t, although as Sean points out she sure was ready to criticize the governor, Marty Walsh and McGuinness for the short comings in their environmental polices.
Just look back over this thread and count the number of times Norton deflects from repeated requests for a direct explanation.
Why?
@Sean: “I want to know why you (Emily) are not actively promoting more development.” Wasn’t Emily Norton the lead sponsor in the Accessory Apartment ordinance that enables quite a bit of increased density throughout the City?
Amy Sangiolo, I had no preconceived notions about the outcome of our deliberations should or would be. You don’t know what was on each of our minds so please don’t pontificate like you do. Dan Fireman or any other donor bought our vote and you are dishonest to suggest it.
I am delighted to see the passion for doing more to take action on climate change here in Newton. I hope this will translate into support for a target of at least 40% green energy in the Newton Power Choice program, as well as support for a resolution committing Newton to be 100% fossil fuel free in every sector by certain dates, which I docketed in the last session with Councilors Leary, Sangiolo, and Brousal-Glaser, and will be redocketing soon. Greg and Sean it will be great to work with you on it! And Greg maybe this conversation has caused you to rethink your opposition to putting restrictions on the use of highly polluting leaf blowers as well. Who knows maybe you’ll even see your way to change your mind on that plastic bag ban as well, which you opposed.
Amy —
“Do you have nothing better to do than to go after Emily Norton for her incredible work fighting for the environment – not only in her role on the Sierra Club but also in her role as City Councilor?”
Yes and no. Yes, if you take a look at the home page, I think there are three or four posts with my name attached. So, highlighting Emily’s inconsistency is not my only activity. Plus, I’m gonna make dinner for the family and then go pick up my daughter at the JCC.
No. Emily has become, for sure through lots of good work, a significant spokesperson for environmental action in the state. She’s on with Jim Braude! She authored a training curriculum for environmental action by municipal officials that Jamie Eldridge delivered. With that level of visibility, it is imperative that she not neglect the importance of increased density as a mechanism for reducing carbon emission. Bigger than composting. Bigger than plastic bags. Bigger than solar panels. And, while I appreciate her efforts on those three issues, her leadership on those has not been nearly as important as her wholesale opposition to increased density. If she’s going to be out there with a platform for setting climate change priorities, then it’s wholly worth my time to either convince her to advocate for density (a losing cause, I know) or expose her as a climate change incrementalist (or worse).
“Wasn’t Emily Norton the lead sponsor in the Accessory Apartment ordinance that enables quite a bit of increased density throughout the City?”
Are you suggesting that Emily’s role in getting the very popular accessory apartment ordinance over the line was bigger than her ongoing role as a development opponent? I don’t think there’s much evidence for that. As I wrote in another post, we need massive amounts of new housing in Newton to meet our regional obligations in both an environmental and economic sense. Accessory apartments are barely a start.
The main cause of pollution in America and in Massachusetts is transportation. That is why denser living is so important. Even electric cars cause pollution.
And another thing, Amy, did you watch the video?
It’s a recording of Emily criticizing a Boston public official for, and I don’t know how to put it another way, not doing enough.
Kinda, sorta makes her fair game, no?
@Lucia According to the United Nations animal agriculture causes more greenhouse gas emissions globally than transportation. Transportation is significant though, which is why building an apartment complex next to a train AND bus line with a huge parking garage under it is not what I would call transit oriented development. Build it without a garage and then maybe people will believe it when you say people living there won’t drive.
So let me get this right: Ff we increase the density of Newton we will mitigate global climate change? If we are against rapid development of Newton we are against positive environmental change? Is it not possible to be both unenthusiastic about the direction Newton is heading as a city but supportive of changes to reduce one’s carbon footprint? This thread is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic – Emily is bringing up epic issues that will change the face of the planet and you guys are still pissed that she didn’t vote for the Austin Street project.
Emily, it’s amusing to read your comments against building parking garages when you were quite vocal about not losing even one parking space in the Austin Street lot.
@Marti Our small businesses rely on people being able to get to them, including via car, which means being able to stash the car somewhere when they’re shopping, which means parking it. Newtonville businesses are not able to get by on just the patronage of those who can walk to them. I’m betting even you drive a car sometimes!
@Marti Newtonville businesses need customers in order to stay in business. Many of those customers come via car. The customers need to be able to stash the car somewhere when they are shopping. Thus the need for parking spaces if we want to support our small businesses.
@Greg – Until I have the answer you’re looking for, you’ll claim I haven’t answered! I’m guessing letter for letter, now that Ted is gone, I post on here more than any other councilor, in spite of my busy life (thanks for the recognition Sean!). I think development that maximizes affordability and environmental benefits and minimizes costs to Newton taxpayers, especially low and moderate income taxpayers, is what we should be prioritizing. I don’t support doubling the number of housing units in the City as Sean proposes (why not triple? Or quadruple?).
Recall that the JAPG for Austin Street recommended 18 units as “moderate” and 30 units as “aggressive.” One of the projects proposed was 25 units, 100% affordable, 3 stories high, and looked like townhouses, fitting into the existing architecture. I think that would have been welcomed by Newtonville residents. But instead we went with a private developer who originally proposed 80 units. But according to you I’m just the hugest jerk in the world for not supporting what was more than double of what had been described as “aggressive” and will be largely exorbitant rents. In fact we learned at a recent Area Council meeting that due to the high rents being paid, there will not be a restaurant in the new development because “those people are going to be paying a lot of rent, they don’t want to have to deal with restaurant smells.”
@Denis – Yes that about captures it.
“I think development that maximizes affordability and environmental benefits and minimizes costs to Newton taxpayers, especially low and moderate income taxpayers, is what we should be prioritizing.”
Well, that certainly clears things up, now doesn’t it?
Let’s call it Unicorn Manor.
@Sean Really? Like, really?
Yes. Really.
If you attach too many conditions to your support of something, it isn’t really support.
It’s really very simple. Arguably the number one step municipalities can take to reduce climate change, especially those municipalities like Newton near an urban core and with transit options, is to increase density. Simply increasing density improves things (at least regionally) for low- and moderate-income households, but adding non-market attention to low- and moderate-income households is a worthy secondary objective. But, not a condition. Minimizing costs to existing taxpayers? Not sure how adding density increases costs, but even so, that’s just not an important value in the face of global climate change.
The. Planet. Is. Overheating. Maybe you’ve heard. It’s going to require real sacrifices — not choosing paper over plastic or switching to solar cells — to stem the change.
If you are not willing to say, clearly and unequivocally, we need significantly more housing in Newton, you’re just not leading. If you are speaking on the environment at the state level and you are not advocating for significantly more housing in Newton and other municipalities, you’re just not leading.
You can mock me all you want about doubling housing. The density of Newton is 4,700 people per square mile. Cambridge is more than three times as dense (16,500 people per square mile). Watertown is more than 1.5 times as dense as Newton (7,600 people per square mile). You’re not willing to live in Cambridge-like density or Watertown-like density to avert a global climate crisis? Then, I question your commitment to the cause.
The political reality is that we’re not going to move the median voter to embrace 2x or 3x density in my lifetime. It’s a theoretical position to prove a point. I’m an acknowledged outlier trying to move the center. But, we’re going to struggle to get even 4- or 5-story residential development in our village centers because you and your gang of neighborhood characters are obstructionists. And, that will be your political legacy.
We’ll all be under three feet of water, but damn if you made sure we didn’t succumb to developer greed.
This storm;s flooding was different. Usually we think of flooding as rain that isn’t draining away fast enough, but this was water being pushed up out of the ocean like a tsunami and into the city by wind and extreme low pressure driven by climate change. This will be a wake-up call to people.
But on V14, when Boston has deep salt water flowing into its streets with sand bags in front of hotels, the main concern here is that a private developer didn’t have a 3-vote margin on a project two years ago that is now under construction. And please recall that Amy was fiercely attacked on the eve of primary for making this under construction project far too expensive to ever build due to her insistence on affordable housing… by the leading proponent of affordable housing in the city. And of course, Amy’s vote wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t close enough to make a difference, and votes against it in the end didn’t matter as it passed.
Regarding the charter, there was the process of drafting it and “deliberating” on it, and then there was the $65K spent trying to pass it, with $45K coming from just 24 people and $30K coming from donors associated with real estate development. That is what is being referred to here Howard and Rhanna.
The YES campaign and its backers argued their agenda was simply for a smaller council, a simpler ballot, and more contested elections. They argued that ward councilors and at-large councilors were indistinguishable, did the same job, and provided the same “local” representation.
That’s why it was heartwarming on the day after the election when the YES and No campaigns joined forces to support the 8-8 proposal which would the reduces the city council by 33% and the ballot from 17 to 9 seats, all contested head to head, and then together lobbied the mayor to advance the home rule petition to the state house after it passed the city council overwhelmingly so that it could be put in front of Newton voters for a decision.
Wait, I forgot, it not April 1st yet. That’s not what happened, was it? The 1st and only vote by the city council to put it to the voters to downsize the council in its 140+ year history was squandered. The big YE$ donors turned out in force the day after the election to argue for “more process” and “very confused voters” and for the Mayor to veto the home rule petition.
At this point its pretty clear this was ALL about eliminating (or at least minimizing) ward-elected councilors. I think we’ll all manage to be more clear on things in the fall when this all comes up again, but I suspect 8-8 may go the way of Merrick Garland this term.
For those interested in campaign finance, I’d recommend visiting http://ocpf.us and looking at maxed out $1000 donations in the governor’s race in December.
@Sean In a democracy I find it effective to try to find common ground with people and go from there. While it’s tempting — for all of us! — to resort to name calling and denigration, it’s not as effective when the rest of the population is not a clone of oneself, as regrettable as that is, and if you want to make progress – in a democracy at least – then you have to use reason and logic to attempt to persuade people of the merit of your viewpoints. I have shared with you my thought process when it comes to judging developments, I even suggested what actual proposed development I could have supported when it came to Austin Street, and still the response was more sneering attacks.
So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Emily at 4:52: Yes voters were pawns of the developers.
Emily at 10:22: I’m all about trying to find common ground.
Thanks for the pre-bedtime giggles.
@Sean And more sneering attacks!
@Sean: Dense development didn’t make this list of the “four most effective things you can do about climate change”.
@emily yes it did. From #2 on living car free: “Living car-free reduces the need to build more roads and parking spaces, and supports higher-density urban design, which more efficient cars do not”
That’s about density and transit oriented development.
@Sean
Help me out here
You want bike lanes.. costs $
You want cars off the road.. costs $ (less vehicle tax)
You want more residential units.. Cost $$$ (18k per child a year comes to mind)
The Newton Residential tax base is out of whack with most other communities. We need to increase commercial tax revenue streams, that will help balance the budget. If we don’t, then were only going to increase the burden on the residents… Who are aging and can’t afford it!
.. and then we have Climate Change
How do you balance the budge sheet?
@Greg
Perhaps you could also chime in to say what you are doing to rebalance the residential / commercial tax in-balance?
I fail to see how high-density development will ameliorate global warming. Will they all be green buildings using passive solar? If not, what? SSDD. The ammunition is soaked.
@Pat there is a lot of evidence that in more dense environments people produce less pollution on a per capita basis than in sprawling suburbs. The efficiencies of scale, such as the ability to walk, bike, and take public transit, reduce all pollution and waste associated with driving. This BU study talks about how suburban cars are among the largest sources of CO2 emissions in metro areas: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/how-suburban-cars-are-clouding-up-cities/389832/.
As for commercial development, today that commercial activity DEPENDS on density. Employees are demanding urban amenities as a core part of their work and companies are responding by moving downtown. When Amazon when shopping for HQ2 it made this very clear. It wasn’t looking for a suburban campus, it wanted an urban environment even as it was asking to build an enormous amount of office space. Locally, PTC is leaving its leafy campus in Needham for the upper floors of a downtown office for the same reason, and they’re spending more money to do it.
Even if you don’t look to the big players, look to the trend of co-working. I’ve spoken with many of the co-working companies to entice them to move to the N-Squared area. None are interested in the drive-in, drive-out office parks. Instead, they want places like Upper Falls, which offer more density and walkability. This is core part of their business strategy.
All of this is part of an ecosystem, it’s not an either-or. We need it all. We need to find ways to build the transportation (there is legislation working through the statehouse to make funding this easier) and we can’t have any of it until we have a more dense environment.
@Chuck – that’s only the case if the residents of the new apartment buildings don’t have cars. But we know they will have cars, because the developers are building huge underground parking garages. My point is that this is not as black and white as Sean is presenting it, that building more dense housing is some sort of magic bullet. Someone who lives in an apartment but drives, has kids, takes plane rides and eats the standard American diet will have a larger carbon footprint than someone who lives in a single family home but has no kids, doesn’t drive, doesn’t take plane rides and eats a plant based diet.
Ideally we would have a price on carbon so that fossil fuel burning activities would be properly priced. And also safe, affordable, reliable reproductive services for women across the globe.
@emily I’m not saying that it’s a clean jump from a driving society to car-less living, but we can’t even try to get to a car-less lifestyle with the environment we have now.
We can start with density and make it easier for people to go on car diet. It’s a step in the right direction.
You and I live on the north side of the city where it’s easier to get around without a car. You do it, I do it, some of our neighbors do it. We need to make it easier for others to do it as well, and that means building more dense housing.
I agree that there should be less parking, so how about we eliminate parking minimums within the zoning requirements?
“Someone who lives in an apartment but drives, has kids, takes plane rides and eats the standard American diet will have a larger carbon footprint than someone who lives in a single family home but has no kids, doesn’t drive, doesn’t take plane rides and eats a plant based diet.”
Not sure that’s even true. For starters, if a person lives in a stand-alone single-family home that is near enough to amenities and transportation to live without a car, that piece of land would be better used if it supported multiple families who could live car-free. This is an important point. Low-density prevents others from getting the benefits of proximity to amenities and transportation enjoyed by the folks who live in single-family homes.
But, more generally, your formulation just avoids the main question. If you add in confounding factors, just about anything better can be made worse. Someone who exercises vigorously, but drinks, smokes, gets no sleep, and has a crappy diet is probably going to have worse health than someone who doesn’t exercise, but eats carefully, doesn’t drink or smoke, and gets good sleep. Are you seriously going to argue that exercise is worse than no exercise?
All else being equal, denser housing is more environmentally responsible. Period. Full stop.
I’m no fan of parking. We should be building a lot less of it. But, the fact of parking doesn’t eliminate the fact that density allows, as Chuck discusses, a lot more car-free trips.
Look, you can criticize the fact that density, as implemented, doesn’t meet 100% of the ideals. But, that doesn’t mean we should be building less; it means we should be building better. If you are truly interested in fighting climate change, you’d be in the forefront of your colleagues looking to upzone in our village centers, encouraging the building of 4-5 story buildings by right where there is existing retail, and fighting like hell to make sure that those buildings don’t get too much parking.
Arguing that density might not be done right is just a defense of the status quo that is going to kill us.
Arguing that density is the magic bullet is inaccurate and leaving the majority of necessary changes off the table.
Simon,
Bike lanes are cheap. It’s a heckuva a lot more expensive to maintain infrastructure for cars. The way to generate revenue and discourage driving is to significantly increase the gas tax and implement congestion charges for peak time use of key highways and roads.
The commercial tax base is a tough nut to crack. My answer is to shift more education funding from municipalities to the state, so that property tax concerns aren’t distorting other land use decisions.
More residential units mean more kids. See above. Also, any public policy that discourages more kids in our communities is bad public policy.
Ultimately, you either believe that climate change is an existential threat … or you don’t. If you do, you take the right steps to reduce carbon emissions and you figure out how to pay for it.
“Arguing that density is the magic bullet is inaccurate and leaving the majority of necessary changes off the table.”
Arguing that density is not the single most important things communities can do, among lots of other things, is inaccurate and forecloses a significant opportunity for reducing carbon emissions.
Also, please show me where I wrote that density is all we have to do. Thanks.
Bike lanes are NOT always cheap unfortunately, when they entail engineering costs and roadway changes as we are seeing with the West Newton project.
When more density merely means more cars in a concentrated area, that’s not a benefit. There must be thought put into actually ensuring people significantly reduce or eliminate car use. And that means pushing back on private developers, who are focused on maximizing profits, not the public good.
Adding residential above retail in village centers makes sense to me. But we have to be thoughtful. How do we do that with “less parking” when we all agree that it is nearly impossible for the vast majority of people to live “car-free” in Newton? We talk about getting rid of the winter parking ban as it tends to negatively impact those in less affluent areas, and I concur. But if we allow overnight on street parking year round, and build new housing without adequate onsite parking, where do you think those new residents will park?
I respectively disagree that increasing density is the single most important thing that communities can do to reduce carbon emissions. By the time you’re done creating your high-density world – one ‘community’ at a time – we’re under water anyway.
Denis,
Density is the single most climate-impacting thing that municipalities have control over. Newton cannot, on its own, change transit availability. Cannot, on its own, change other transportation options. Cannot, on its own, change energy generation options. Cannot, on its own, implement a carbon tax. &c.
Newton can play a big role promoting transit, promoting green energy, &c.. And, Emily, to her credit, has been a positive voice for the kind of changes that Newton can participate in, but doesn’t have total control over.
Newton has, within some state limits, near total control over land-use decisions. And, land-use decisions have an enormous impact on the rate of climate change.
But, hey, if we can’t change Needham, we shouldn’t do anything in Newton, right?
“Newton cannot, on its own, change transit availability. Cannot, on its own, change other transportation options. Cannot, on its own, change energy generation options. Cannot, on its own, implement a carbon tax. &c.”
–Newton could indeed establish its own shuttle.
–Newton is in the process of changing generation options via NewtonPowerChoice.com.
–With enabling legislation filed by Rep. Pignatelli, which I testified in favor of with him last year, Newton would be authorized to set its own gas tax up to 5 cents a gallon.
Cities and towns have tremendous power to impact fossil fuel demand. Particularly if those most passionate about it would focus on their areas of agreement.
“Cannot, on its own, change other transportation options. Cannot, on its own, change energy generation options. Cannot, on its own, implement a carbon tax. &c.”
— Newton could re-establish its own shuttle.
— Newton is about to change energy generation options, visit NewtonPowerChoice.com (I am proud to have brought this to Newton)
— Rep. Pignatelli filed legislation to authorize cities and towns to impose their own gas taxes, I testified with him in favor of this bill last year.
Those are just a few of the many things Newton can do to reduce fossil fuel demand, especially when those of us most passionate about this topic focus on our areas of agreement.
I can’t help but notice how the people advocating most strongly for high density housing, are doing so from the comfort of their single-family homes with yards.
Like Sean, I also noticed Mr. McGuinness’s ‘urban areas, that’s where you need to grow’ comment, but I had the opposite reaction. I thought it made him look illogical, reflexively reciting the ‘smart growth’ mantra while ignoring that fact that our coastal urban areas are most in danger of flooding. Even if you think he means building on higher ground in Boston, Brookline, Newton, Malden, wherever, our whole regional transit system that is supposed to be our substitute for cars is centered around Park Street, Government Center, State & Downtown Crossing T stations, and Back Bay, South Station and North Station. How many underground stations besides Aquarium are going to have to be sandbagged in the next decade or two, as Boston becomes more like Venice? In 20 or 30 years we may be wishing we had that elevated Central Artery back.
Interestingly, the industry that’s done so much to make San Francisco and environs both overcrowded and expensive, appears to be discovering the virtues of the Midwest — cheaper homes, and a world beyond the tech bubble. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/technology/silicon-valley-midwest.html