The following is an annotated transcript of a portion of the February 11, 2019, meeting of the Newton City Council’s Zoning and Planning (ZAP) Committee. The agenda was the Washington St. Visioning Plan. The portion selected is Councilor Lisle Baker’s complete second set of remarks at the meeting.
There are two speakers: At-large Councilor and ZAP Chair Susan Albright, who calls on Councilor Baker at the very beginning and a recognizes his remarks at the very end, and Councilor Baker. Their uncut and unedited verbatim remarks are in regular text. The annotations are additions to their comments and are rendered in italics and are indented.
The 6:14 recording is here. The recording of the full meeting is here. I have made every attempt to transcribe accurately. I did not transcribe “uhs” and “ums” and the like. If I have made an error or errors, please let me know in the comments and I will update.
Councilor Albright: Councilor Baker, finally.
Councilor Baker had been recognized earlier, but had to wait a few councilors to speak.
Councilor Baker: Thank you Madame Chair.
I want to sort of focus on three dimensions of what you’ve been saying and I appreciate by the way all the work that has gone in here, because the premise of doing this work is to get ahead of the development process, which basically says show up and we’ll look at what you have. So, again, this is the idea that planning matters and matters if you can do it right.
Iron fist, velvet glove. Spoiler alert: Councilor Baker doesn’t think it’s been done right.
But, I want to ask you to reflect as you go forward on three dimensions of this where I’m not sure I could vote for this and I’ll tell you why. First, I was trying to get a sense of the change that is being proposed here. And, what it looks like to me, frankly, is we’re trading a suburban environment for an urban environment. Now, maybe we want an urban environment in Newton.
It’s 2019. Perhaps Councilor Baker should be a little more attentive to the possibility that people will understand “urban” as code.
But, if you look at the comparison between pages 100 and 101 as an example in the plan that’s showing some trees next to the Pike and some lower rise buildings and parking spaces. And, if you go and look at page 101 it looks like a lot more building. If you go back and look at another place in the corridor. If you look at page 148 where the existing Whole Foods and the Chatham Center and all of that. And, then we look at page 149 where there’s a whole lot more building. And, this is … while it says graphic in production, these are the type of character buildings being envisioned. And I think that this illustrates for me that part of the challenge is that you’ve got a zoning map and you’ve got a zoning code but what we really need for the next round to pick up on what Mr. Heath had talked about is sort of a vision of going down the street and saying okay this is what’s there now, this is what could be there next. Because, unless we know what could be there next under the plan, it’s going to be hard to vote for it.
This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request, but having observed Councilor Baker in the wild for years, I suspect he wants more process as a matter of delay.
At least I am. I’m not willing to trade something for a prospect that I’m not sure is a wise upgrade even with all the ideas that you’ve articulated, many of which I think are quite valuable.
And, there you have it. This is the real issue: not process, but substance. Councilor Baker is not aligned with this vision and isn’t that interested in compromising. If his vote is not necessary to get the vision passed, he should be ignored.
By the way, Councilor Baker is very good at legislating. What he’s doing here many of the councilors on the more progressive end of the spectrum almost never do (and should): clearly articulating his opening requirements and threaten to vote no without changes that meet those requirements. What the more progressive councilors are beginning to do better is stand up to him and say, fine, vote no.
A second premise that I want to come back to Councilor Laredo’s point about should we do something about Washington St.
Councilor Baker is citing his colleague to support an argument his colleague didn’t make. Councilor Laredo wants a holistic design approach for the corridor. It’s tricky without full details of the planned-for development. Development design is tricky without knowing the holistic design of the corridor. An interesting chicken-and-egg problem.
Councilor Baker argues against a specific kind of change. His and Councilor Laredo’s points are not the same.
We want to look at Washington St on page … Let me come back to where the beginning of this. Page 23. There’s an image of Washington Street. Now, why Washington St was so wide to begin with may be because of the trolley system. My understanding for example that in New York City the avenues in New York City were wide because they had to be wide enough for a carriage to turn around, literally, by going forward and then coming back the other way because you couldn’t obviously back up a carriage.
Weird history journey that promised trolleys, switched to horse-drawn carriages, and went exactly nowhere. What are we supposed to draw from this? Washington St. should remain wide because … carriages?
I don’t know how that happened with Washington St but then I look at the visions of Washington St over on page 170 and the other pages which basically look like Washington St and this goes back to a point that Mr. Heath made, that Washington St. somehow [inaudible] thoroughfare.
Again, pretending to build on one person’s argument, but actually making a different argument.
Well, frankly, I’m over on the other end of town and I come to Washington St because I want to go to West Newton. But, if I can’t get there because I gotta drive through all of this maze, I’m not going to come.
What kind of post-apocalyptic hellscape are they planning on Washington St. that a high-minded gentleman from Chestnut Hill cannot, of an afternoon, hop into his motor carriage, enjoy a journey to the other side of the tracks, and partake of the many fine amusements they offer there, before returning to the safety of his estate by aforementioned motor carriage.
Seriously, what’s being proposed is not dramatically different than Harvard St. between Boylston St. (Rte. 9) and Commonwealth Ave. Hardly a barren commercial wasteland inaccessible to those in Chestnut Hill who insist on driving.
Now, maybe you don’t want me to come because I’m coming in a single-family car. I mean a single-passenger car.
This is the strawest of straw arguments and borders on bad faith. Nobody is proposing making West Newton inaccessible to people in cars. It’s about balance. The evidence is overwhelming. Oversupplying cheap parking drains the commercial centers of vitality and promotes more driving. Those operating in good faith are arguing for restraint on parking, not none. The good-faith conversation here is how to strike a balance.
But, I bet you most of the people in this room came in one car, by themselves. I did tonight. Most of us in the City Council came here tonight.
Where to start? If the City did a better job accommodating folks on bicycles, fewer people would drive. Also, the council is arranged by geographical districts — wards — which should make it easy for councilors to carpool.
But, who sets policy on parking in mixed-use districts based on the driving behavior of city councilors and others going to a night-time meeting in a stand-alone building?
And, I think to build a premise of a plan on the idea that we’re going to take people out of their cars and out of single-occupancy cars in the city of Newton and say somehow this plan is going to work is a grave error.
They’re coming for our cars!!!!
Again, nobody is suggesting that the Washington St. corridor and West Newton be inaccessible by car, only that there be a much more sustainable mix of transportation modes. Our commercial areas will not be sustainable if they are car-centric. Our city will not be sustainable if we don’t cut car volume. The planet is going to boil* if we don’t do our share to reduce car use.
And, I think that the problem I’m concerned about I raised this earlier in the whole design on the Washington St. corridor is when you start having people use ride-sharing and pull over and stop while they wait for somebody to get picked up the kind of dislocation that causes in just the traffic flow.
Red herring. No ride-sharing pickup outside designated areas. Problem solved. Also, impose much higher fees on ride-sharing, to capture their externalities. Problem reduced.
You don’t want to trade something that looks like … certainly you’re saying it’s too much of a highway. I don’t want to trade it for a hardened artery either. Somebody once said that for national land use policy we ought to have a national land use policy and then I think it was Senator Pat Moynihan, who used to be an urban planner, said yes we have one, it’s called the Interstate Highway System.
Patrick Moynihan was an academic with a sociology degree. He was never a trained or practicing urban planner. I could not find the quotation Councilor Baker attributes to him.
I also have no idea what the relevance is to this particular conversation.
And, we did that back in the ‘60s. But what I want to be careful about in thinking about what we do here that we don’t take people like me and say you’ve effectively got to have a passport to get from East Newton to West Newton in order to come shop.
Okay. This is a weird metaphor. Not having cheap, abundant parking is like a border crossing? People like Councilor Baker who drive from Chestnut Hill are probably just going to have to pay more to park than they are used to. No armed checkpoint.
Also, East Newton? You’re from Chestnut Hill, Councilor Baker. Chestnut Hill. Own it.
That’s not a trade up as far as I’m concerned.
The third dimension of this and I think it’s really important to understand is that implicit in this to me is an idea that in order to make this work you got to give everybody a little more development opportunity than they have now. Because if you look at it now and they say well I prefer what I got now to what you’re going to tell me i can do, they don’t have to go very far to file a subdivision plan, freeze the zoning for eight years, and this whole process is a waste of time.
This sounds like go big or go home. Which is what he’s arguing against, right?
Also, very emphatic delivery of “waste of time.” Worth the listen just for it. Waste. Of. Time.
So, I think that it’s really important for us to understand what kind of community we want.
Who does he mean by “we”?
Might be a good time to note that Councilor Baker historically gets the lowest vote totals for unopposed ward councilors and often gets fewer votes than the winner splitting votes in a contested election. “We” is not so big.
Are we really incentivizing this the way we want to incentivize it and is it going to be something that people in my part of the world can vote for because is it going to close them off from opportunities to visit parts of Newton they’d like to but they can’t because there’s no parking.
This is the most fulsome apology for parking I may have ever heard. We have killed our city and our country with an oversupply of cheap parking. So, now folks want to dial it back. Less parking. Without a huge subsidy for those who choose to drive. The way he goes on, it sounds like they’re not going to build a spot in the entire corridor.
Also, the geographical dynamic is wonderful. He doesn’t care one bit about the vitality of West Newton for the folks in West Newton. He doesn’t care about making development along the Washington St. corridor human-scaled for the people who live nearby. If folks from his enclave — his “part of the world” — can’t hop in the car and create traffic to and through the corridor, he’s going to block the plan.
I think the idea of taking parking minimums out is something I will not be yet persuaded will be a good idea.
Let me translate: I’m not voting to take out parking minimums. Ever.
I know that my wonderful colleague thinks this is swell.
This is just straight-up sexism. Patronizing. Condescending. Old-school. Chauvinism.
You can hear the sneer.
But, this is a city where people drive.
The planet is boiling*, but you’re going to have to pry the steering wheel from his cold, dead hands. (With apologies to the NRA.)
I don’t see that changing.
Let me translate: I’m not going to be a leader on sustainable transportation in Newton.
If you’re saying that we’re going to shift to a different kind of city because of this vision, I really can’t buy that.
These are the words of a climate-change-denying dead-ender.
And so, I think a premise that builds on the idea that we shouldn’t have parking minimums and we shouldn’t have parking requirements, is one I’m not yet persuaded is a good idea. And, I don’t buy the idea of induced demand.
This is just straight-up know-nothingness in service of a lifestyle — car-dependency — that has failed us and continues to fail us.
I buy the idea that people are going to drive and they need some place to park and if they’re not going to find it in the center of the city they’re going to find it in the neighborhoods. So, that’s my concern.
By “in the neighborhoods,” he means on public property. Resident parking is not necessarily the best use of the space. Indeed parking might not be the best use for the space. In any case, the city can manage access to that public space through regulation, including meters and residential parking permits.
Susan Albright: Councilor Baker, from my perspective, you’ll always be welcome on the north side of the city.
Councilor Albright, he does not appear to care one whit for you or your constituents. Let him stay in Chestnut Hill.
—
I expect that folks in the comments are going to take me to task for the sneering contempt of a beloved public servant. Be more respectful. Try to persuade. Councilor Baker has some valid points and reflects the equally valid concerns of his constituents and folks city-wide.
Horse hooey. Councilor Baker has staked out an extremist position and wrapped it in honey-sweet, baritone reasonableness. He should be called out for his car-centric, climate-change-denying extremism.
Ward 7 can do better. The city deserves better.
*This is an intentional exaggeration for dramatic affect. The planet is not literally boiling. But, if we don’t reduce carbon emission by 45% globally, the global temperature will rise by 1.5 ℃, with catastrophic effect.
Councilor Baker is 100% right that Newton is a city where people drive. Apparently the author of this unfortunate attack screed (yo, Greg, is this where V14 is headed?) hasn’t noticed that you only need the fingers on one hand to count the number of bike riders using our newly painted bike paths at any given time anywhere in the city. Newton is not Amsterdam, it never will be, and it is ludicrous to suggest that somehow we’ll solve the world’s climate change issues by narrowing one of the city’s main thoroughfares in a way that’s guaranteed to cause daily gridlock. Congratulations, Councilor Baker, for calling it like it is and standing up to these misguided zealots. Keep Washington Street two lanes!
Why should the residents of West Newton deal with the diminished vibrancy of their village center at the benefit of the people that don’t live there and want to drive through it?
Has anyone even compared how a two lane road with appropriate turning lane handles traffic volume compared to the existing four lane road with no turning lanes?
This video from Cupola Media, narrated by architect and planner Jeff Speck, goes through it: https://vimeo.com/136672997
Putting Washington St. on a road diet will have no negative impacts in terms of traffic flow while allowing the corridor to be improved for walking and biking, bringing more people who want to live and spend money.
The last stand of a shriveling gerontocracy and its disgraceful, dog-whistle “I fear we are becoming an urban environment” politics. Good riddance.
If narrowing streets made way for tree plantings, community aesthetics and making driving safer/slower, OK, but more concrete/asphalt for bike lanes? After all of the existing bike lanes have been added throughout Newton thus far, I’d say there are hardly any bikes using those lanes — in relation to cars, less than 1 bike per 200+ cars. No or very minimal cost benefit there.
The solution that no one’s willing to touch: Raise the costs of car ownership so that we stop our massive subsidies of drivers. That means doubling or tripling: Gas taxes, automobile excise taxes, tolls, and so forth. Raise costs enough to fund road system maintenance.
If we do that and at the same time improve alternatives to car ownership, we might just get a city where we don’t spend 164 hours a year on average sitting in traffic jams.
Jim – Do you have any observational data to back up your assertion of 1 bike per 200 cars? There are no bike lanes currently on Washington St. so of course there are very few people biking on this stretch. Saying we shouldn’t build safe bike infrastructure is like saying we shouldn’t build a bridge because nobody swims across the river. As someone who regularly rides a bike in Newton I can tell you that there are people on bikes everywhere. Look at the bike racks outside the schools. Look closely at the areas around transit. Painted bike lanes are not safe and do not encourage people who are afraid of biking to get on a bike.
Part of the Washington St. redesign should include safe biking infrastructure, which helps all people. People in wheelchairs have a safe place to travel that is plowed and salted, unlike many of our sidewalks. Wider sidewalks encourage walking and gathering. Washington St. as it is currently arranged is a highway next to a highway. The goal of the redesign is to make Washington St. a more people-centered place, not just a place for cars. I’d encourage you to read the work of Jeff Speck to get an idea of where contemporary planning practice is and how these ideas can improve our city for everyone.
Dulles, unfortunately the built environment for the last 100 years has been directed to auto traffic, and once wide-spread track transit (amenable to expansion) has already been long since removed at the behest of GM bus manufacturers, etc. along with auto manufacturers. Adding a substantial additional expense for car ownership at this time simply compounds the financial suffering of those needing transportation.
“Raise the costs of car ownership so that we stop our massive subsidies of drivers. That means doubling or tripling: Gas taxes, automobile excise taxes, tolls, and so forth.”
Don’t you think that will hurt lower income people the most? I think that we would need to improve our public transit first before we do any of that.
Brenda, all bikers have to do is travel wherever possible on side streets, not main thoroughfares. Simple and cheap solution. Why must they always be directed to main thoroughfares?
(Newton is fortunate to already have a network of largely connecting side streets.)
Jim – the issue is that safe infrastructure is needed for cyclists. Side roads often don’t even have painted bike lanes and can be narrow. Drivers don’t give people on bikes the necessary and legally required space to operate safely. Main roads are often overbuilt and encourage speeding. Lanes can be narrowed or eliminated, protected space created that allows bikes and other road users to travel safely, all with no or negligible impact on car travel times.
Councilor Baker wasn’t totally off the mark in his initial comments but how worried are we about “people in my(his)” part of the world? He’s a city councilor who’s supposed to consider the needs of the entire city when making citywide decisions.
What Sean said about the tone of his comment to Councilor Albright. He shouldn’t speak to women in such a demeaning manner, nor should Michael use an ageist comment in reference to Councilor Baker. It’s okay to let Councilor Baker’s inappropriate statement stand on its own
Mary – Investments in public transportation are sorely needed. Increased fees on autos that fund transit will help lower income people the most. Most low income people cannot afford to own a car so increased gas taxes, tolls, congestion pricing does not hurt them. What does hurt them is the lack of investment in public transit and continued fare hikes.
I didn’t even have to look. I knew the snark was coming from Sean. But way off base to assert that urban is code
It’s hard to comment because of the condescending and mostly irrelevant sidebars in italics.
Councilor Baker is representing the views of most residents of Newton, if they’re being honest, who drive their cars most places they go and need to have parking if we want them to go to these wonderful villages we are planning on enhancing.
I’ve walked to L’Aroma countless times to meet people, including city councilors, all of whom drove there and poached parking spaces at CVS, Santander or elsewhere since L’Roma has no parking.
Despite the hectoring here, most people in Newton will continue to drive to their destination, especially in bad weather or at night, and garages with sufficient parking need to be included in commercial spaces. The city can certainly charge enough for parking to encourage more biking and walking, but we have to acknowledge that people value their time, and habits are hard to break. Villifying honest people is not helpful in this, particularly when they show the utmost respect for their colleagues, unlike what is falsely implied by the sidebars.
Brenda, the point is that the side streets, much safer for bikers (than main thoroughfares with much more and faster traffic) don’t need the painted lanes.
Jim – First of all, my name is Brendan. It seems like you are simply against bike lanes. When I bike on Homer St., for example, I’m often forced out of the shoulder and into the travel lane because of car parking or poorly plowed roads. This past weekend when I was riding on Homer near Newton Centre playground a driver passed me in the lane, without moving over at all. The driver simply didn’t want to slow down and passed me illegally and dangerously close. With some creativity, many streets can be made safer for all people while still maintaining parking and access for cars.
Brendan, how can you possibly say that putting Washington Street on a “road diet” will have no negative traffic impact? Drivers heading east toward Newton Corner from West Newton who want to turn left into one of the many neighborhood streets running north off Washington will get backed up, the left hand turn areas will overflow into the one remaining eastbound traffic lane, and voila, gridlock. Everyone seems to forget that there are neighborhood streets there, not to mention that when the inevitable development occurs that will bring more residents and thus more cars. It’s nuts to think otherwise. We are a driving society, not a biking society. The answer is not to put empty bike lanes next to packed traffic lanes. The answer is to be realistic and keep 2 lanes flowing in each direction. Too bad it took the ward councilor from Chestnut Hill to make this obvious point. The silence from the 3 ward councilors (Greenberg, Norton, Brousal-Glazer) who represent the residents neighboring Washington Street who will be most negatively impacted is deafening.
I live in West Newton and have for more than 40 years. Making Washington St. more walk-friendly is one of my major priorities. Washington is not now an attractive, safe, or enticing place to walk. I walk to the center often, but via back streets, not by way of Washington St. which is the most direct route. I sometimes walk from West Newton to Newtonville via Washington St.. I would do so more often if the walk were more pleasant: less dirt, dust, noise, and fewer cars whizzing by. More trees (many more trees) and a few benches would also help, especially in the warmest months.
I also think my good friends Counselor Baker and Gerry Chervinsky would be more attracted to an enhanced Washington St. with less parking and fewer lanes if the walk from parking areas to shopping or services would bring out more strolling voters to chat with and perhaps a new destination that we could all meet for a scotch, bourbon, or nice glass of wine. Drinks on me guys! Also I remind them that if I and my neighbors are walking, there will be more available parking for Lisle and fewer cars in the fewer lanes for Gerry.
I appreciate the video about road diets. It’s a start on getting people to open their minds to the possibility that it might actually work. But far more conversation and specific examples need to be put in front of Newton residents before they will accept it. (Most Newton folks are actually from Missouri I think.) I drive the length of Washington St. often enough from Auburn St to Newton Corner in early morning and late afternoon traffic to know some of the traffic challenges. The concept of fewer lanes is reasonable for most of the corridor, but the devil is in the specific design at key points. Residents need to be persuaded, not bullied into accepting “experts'” recommendations.
I do support safe routes for bicycles even though I do not bicycle in Newton much anymore – used to do that. Making Washington St. walker-friendly and more alive is my top priority.
On another thread (on another day) I’d like to see discussion about Washington St. Corridor issues of commercial and housing mix, building heights, and how can a neighborhood undergo considerable zoning change and not financially squeeze out small local businesses
Anne,
Thoughtful contribution. Thanks.
@Jim Epstein and @MMQC – we’ve spent the last century getting into this mess of an auto-centric world, we won’t get out of it overnight either. That’s no excuse not to start heading in the right direction. Making drivers self-fund the roads they drive on is austere, but it would be a good start toward necessary budget-balancing.
@Jim, what a pleasure to read your advocacy for drivers of lesser economic means. Right in line with your stance on affordable housing.
Dulles, if your comparison of advocacy for affordability for drivers and affordability for housing is meant to be facetious, there is a big difference. More affordable housing (than that available in Newton) is certainly more available metro-wide. My point on housing is that even the least expensive housing currently available in Newton exceeds the means of many the housing advocates would aim to satisfy. But, again, why must those without sufficient means be limited to looking in Newton — take a look in Waltham or Dedham or other even less expensive communities in the metro area, where there is more affordable housing. Why must this issue be subject to arbitrary town boundaries (other than otherwise required in meeting 40b)?
If “people drive in Newton” then why are the roads in such poor shape? It’s actually embarassing.
Steven, poor (embarrassing) shape of roads is from weather plus volume of traffic plus other financial commitments. (As I understand, Massachusetts roads are rated worst in the nation, 50th out of 50.)
Well, to put it a different way then, should every American family have a fundamental right to own a car?
If you believe that car ownership is a universal right (like, say, healthcare), what do you think of subsidizing car ownership for the poorest Americans to make it affordable to them? Those who can afford it would pay their fair share to maintain our infrastructure. Those who can’t afford it get a price break.
That way you’re still discouraging people economically from car ownership, but without abandoning poorer people at the roadside.
Dulles, the state share of road etc. infrastructure maintenance is already currently covered through (1) taxes, (2) tolls, and (3) bonds (borrowing); the federal share of road etc. infrastructure maintenance is already currently covered through (1) taxes, (2) borrowing from the federal reserve which is really just printing money/inflation, and (3) borrowing from other than the federal reserve (including treasuries).
Sean thank you for this write up. I unfortunately missed his meeting and found the taped video hard to watch. I think as a matter of improving citizen engagement there should be better access to filmed meetings.
I like to note that Councilor Baker said in a ZAP meeting 3 weeks ago that he was not going to support changes on Washington Street because he was concerned that similar changes would then be made to Newton Centre and that isn’t ok with him.
As for the person who suggested that Lisle Baker is a City Councilor and thus beholden to the whole city, this is the crux of the Charter Commission recommendations. Councilor Baker is a WARD councilor elected by one of the smallest voting wards in the city. But he gets to vote on everything and apparently vote against fixing Washington St for fear of it bringing change closer to his home base (but not his ward as Newton Centre is in ward 6). Question is if the charter had passed and all councilors were elected at large, would anyone act like this?
As for the changes being suggested to street design, the opportunities are immense. Washington Street is a hot spot for crashes of all types, lacks sidewalks and crossings in too many places, is a heat island, and on much of the corridor in need of a facelift. One lane each direction with pocketed turn lanes will allow for smoother traffic flow, fewer crashes especially when turning, much safer pedestrian crossings and will free up enough space to create sidewalks on both sides, protected bike lanes and maintain significant parking. There will also be room to plant trees. This is an opportunity to create a lovely village street out of what is currently a high speed thoroughfare. Improved safety, health, access, convenience and economic vitality. What is not to love?
I more than agree that Washington Street corridor looks hodge podge horrible. Needs to be more than fixed up cosmetically — trees, better sidewalks etc. — and one lane each way with center turning lane will make traffic safer. One thing which can be done immediately is dense planting of year around foliage (evergreens etc.) where turnpike abuts the street.
“Most people in Newton, MA commute by Drove Alone, and the average commute time is 25.4 minutes. The average car ownership in Newton, MA is 2 cars per household.
Source: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/newton-ma/
Newton IS a city where people drive
Based upon DataUSA Newton looks much more like Needham, Dedham and Arlington vs Cambridge, Brookline and Boston.
Seems to me Newton leaders need to determine how the majority of Newton residents envision a future Newton vs allowing a vocal minority dictate that Newton must implement policies that discourage car travel
Just because Newton is currently a “must drive” city for many residents, does not mean it needs to stay that way. Modernization of infrastructure will contribute to active uses (walking, biking). I know I would bike more if I felt safer — yes year-round — and I’m pushing 50. Increase in population density (coming, whether shaped by zoning reform and City visioning processes or not) will provide enough usage for better public transportation to be feasible. Or at least these outcomes are my hope.
Did anyone read the article in the Boston Globe today about car ownership in Cambridge? For the past 10 years, they have not met their goal,of 17 per cent fewer cars. Instead they have roughly 7 percent fewer cars. Why don’t more people bike? Well one reason is the weather sucks.
Get over yourselves m bikers… Electric cars charged by wind or solar is going to be the majority means of transportation in the future. Biking will be a minority form of everyday transport in New England.
Washington Street is horrible for walking because of the PIKE NOISE folks. Washington Street itself is not that bad. It’s the pike that ruins the area, I have lived 1 block in from Washington Street for 38 years. You can reduce Washington to 2 lanes and it still won’t be a pleasant walk because of the Pike Noise. In the summer, I have to close my windows to listen to the radio in the house. I’m not kidding, and I’m 5 houses in p.
Am I supposed to bike around Newton with my little kids in tow in frigid weather at night to head out for pizza? Oh right I’ll buy a car because like most Newton families, that’s the realistic option.
When I am an empty nester and retired I will certainly enjoy an opportunity to leisurely bike around Newton.
Build it and the bikers will come. The bike lane of dreams. It is a good use of our scarce city finances.
Most Newtonians want walkable villages but also want to drive there and park in a reasonably close parking garage if they don’t live nearby. Many who live in single family neighborhoods with stable or rising property values would like to keep that also.
The City Council can design this town for the wants and needs of current, tax-paying residents, or they can try to push them out and replace them with new residents who want a different vision for how to live.
I agree with Councilor Baker. I think the too Newton city councilors are out of touch with what a majority of Newton voters want – which I think is to improve Washington St but plan for the fact that Newton citizens drive.
Newton should not allow developers to create housing with fewer parking spaces than city zoning codes allow today. Developers should continue to provide 2 parking spaces per housing unit. Allowing developers to provide less parking just allows developers to make more money and forces future residents to look for (free) parking on side streets.
I am looking for a way to help start a petition drive to make clear to the Newton city councilors that they are going too far. If there are like minded people reading this, please let me know so we can organize! Thanks!
“Build it and the bikers will come.” LOL
That’s parody, right?
The heck with the cost, especially cost per biker.
The heck with the number of physically able to bike.
The heck with those that need to tote items.
The heck with those toting family members.
The heck with weather and seasonal conditions.
I’d say, first require all city employees, including elected officials, to always avail themselves of those taxpayer funded bike lanes by biking.
Spending money to paint bike lanes on existing street configurations is one thing, spending big money to reconstruct streets specifically to install bike lanes, well, apparently only Newton City Council could come up with something like that in Newton with its current physical, geographic and demographic status.
A good compromise would be similar to NYC summer streets. During the summer, certain roads are shutdown for pedestrians and bikes..
We may not have the volune of people, but it worth considering as a compromise and also to see actually how successful it would be.
This is not a zero-sum game. Building safer infrastructure for biking and walking doesn’t mean that people will not be able to drive. Building more housing does not mean that current residents will be displaced. I grew up in Newton and moved back with my wife because I know it’s a great place to raise a family, and that is our goal. We also drive and enjoy being able to get around however we choose and however is convenient. Advocates like me are simply asking for safer infrastructure that allows us to choose active transportation like biking and walking more often. Cargo, kids, they can all be transported on bikes. Someone wrote that we are more like Arlington than Cambridge or Brookline. Well, Arlington recently started a separated bus/bike lane on Mass Ave. during the morning commute. They are also one of the towns that hosts the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway. Current and future residents of Newton should be able to travel by a variety of means and do so safely. Continuing to build only for cars, rather than a variety of modes including biking, walking and public transit, will only worsen traffic and health.
Cargo and kids cannot all be transported on bikes. If I can transport 2 8 year olds to a baseball practice on bike then it’s close enough for them to walk.
My having kids is precisely what stopped my bike commuting in the 90s.
It just was t possible. Now, go back to my own childhood in the 60s and 70s where I was free to roam and play outside after school, and didn’t get transported to a zillion soccer games, kumon math, music lesson outside of school ( we had real band instructors back then). But that’s not now, and especially not in Newton where the parenting can get over the top ( imho).
And Cambridge isn’t doing much better.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly-happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5Nlo00L6AM/story.html
Rick – I’m not saying that we should all be forced to give up our cars and do everything on bikes. There are many examples of people using cargo bikes to transport kids and gear: https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/parenting/sc-minivan-of-bikes-family-1025-20161021-story.html
The above article is just one. If your child wanted to bike to school, wouldn’t you want them to have a safe route to do it? If kids could get around Newton without cars, safely, wouldn’t everyone be happier?
“Cargo, kids, they can all be transported on bikes.” Really?
I think back to the 90s when the line of parents in cars dropping their kids off at school got to be a problem. These are kids who the town concluded COULD walk to school. But apparently the parents didn’t think so.
I’m keenly in tune with what is practical, and cost effective. Washington Street may indeed be one of the few streets wide enough to put a dedicated bike lane, problem is, unlike say the Midwest, where streets are wide, many if not most of the streets are just too narrow, that’s just an unfortunate fact of living in older towns along the coast.
They can’t be made safe without taking the land and widening the street. When I bike commuted, when I went through nonantum I rode on the sidewalk through the village center until it widened out.
Jim – Small children can be transported in a cargo bike, many of which are outfitted with seats and restraints. Older children can ride their own bikes. Please take a look at the Chicago Tribune article I linked to or Google “kids in cargo bikes”. There’s also a great store on the Somerville/Cambridge line called Bicycle Belle that specializes in transport bicycles. If you’re interested in learning more the friendly staff there could help educate you about what’s possible.
Rick – You’re right, there are many roads that are too small for dedicated, protected lanes. Imagine if there was a protected route through Nonantum to the Charles River bike path? Crafts St. is very wide, as is Watertown St. With some creativity a network can be created.
@ Karen, what data do you have to support residents in new housing which is adjacent to mass transit will need or want two cars per household? The vast majority of people moving to this newly constructed housing are moving there to take advantage of the mass transit. (See 28 Austin for example.)
Why would we put such a requirement on these developments making them less feasible and more costly, which in result will push the rents even higher. My family of 3 has one car and we manage just fine utilizing mass transit, in fact it’s the reason we bought where we did. If we need another car for a weekend we rent one it’s significantly less than owning another car. It’s been well documented that millenials are shunning car ownership.
Just because you can’t imagine owning two cars doesn’t mean we should require developers to build that way.
Let me make a different point as well. We’re encouraging developers to build a lot of housing so people can perhaps take the commuter rail into Boston and work in the seaport district etc. if the union of concerned scientists is correct, these places are going to be underwater in a couple decades. So, we’re encouraging people to build big offices and train into places that are going to be bailed out ( pun intended) by the taxpayers in a relatively short while. Again private profits- public expenses. I assuming unfortunately that we humans will not be able to cut emissions enough to reverse the trend in the short term. That’s a realistic assumption. It’s not that I deny climate change – quite the opposite. I think it’s coming and we need to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
If I were still working in Brighton on western Ave I would take the newly expanded bike path ( when free of snow and ice ) from the end of albemarle road, but it has to be clear of snow and ice.
But now my current work takes me out to Southborough on the pike then route 9, I’m not at a luxury to turn down work because of its location. I’m an Software engineer specializing in FDA regulated medical devices and many of those companies are out near 495.
I’ve been to Chicago and driven there many times, the streets are much wider. The grid of streets much more practical. The drivers much more polite. Chicago biking downtown? Realistic except for the frigid temps off Lake Michigan. Boston cow paths? Not so much.
This is what I remember when I biked in Amsterdam
No helmets, few bike lanes, and very small cars…..
Is this the safety approach that would fly in Newton?
https://cupofjo.com/2012/04/motherhood-mondays-biking-in-amsterdam/
For me, it isn’t about Newton becoming Amsterdam. All I’m asking for is enhanced safety for biking.
“Kids an cargo bikes” LOL
“Grandparents in cargo bikes”
“Adult friends and relatives in cargo bikes”
“Shopping bags of groceries in cargo bikes”
“Overweight and infirmed people in cargo bikes”
“Pets in cargo bikes”
“Cargo bikes in snow and rain”
I’ve got an alternate suggestion/question to reduce traffic congestion/concrete devoted to motor vehicles — how many of the 24/7 bike advocates own a motor vehicle which is larger than a sub-compact? If they do, the label is : “hypocrisy”.
(By the way, my family owns two subcompacts.)
Jim – Are you saying that smaller cars reduce traffic congestion?
Yep
…and environmental impacts as well
Jim – Any data to back that up?
Brenda, have it your way —
A large SUV occupies the same road, traffic and parking space as a sub-compact
A large SUV consumes as much fuel as a sub-compact
A large SUV consumes as much resource to construct as a sub-compact
Although I don’t support creating bike paths on major streets if it will increase congestion for cars, Brendan makes a good point that a bike path system can and should be created on lesser traveled roads such as Crafts St. Austin Street and Newtonville Ave. would also make more sense for bikes than Washington St., and could be turned into one-way roads for cars in order to accommodate the bike paths, if need be. It wouldn’t take long for people to install an app telling them where the roads with bike paths are.
Hi @Kyle, actually, this recent Boston Globe article explains that Cambridge has not been able to social-engineer a drop in car ownership.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly-happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5Nlo00L6AM/story.html
Time will tell whether the residents of 28 Austin Street will be satisfied with one car per household. My concern that it is hard to add parking to 28 Austin Street after the fact, in the event that people do want more than one car per household.
Forcing developers to supply 2 parking spaces per housing unit will not result in higher housing costs. Higher housing costs will occur anyway, as long as Newton is a desirable city to live in (and as long as Boston’s employment opportunities continue to boom).
Developers are only too happy to supply as little parking as possible to new housing units, as this allows them to maximize livable square footage (which in turn allows them to make more profit via rent or condo sales).
Newton has already tried to social-engineer limited parking with past projects, and this has yielded poor results. For example, the Zervas school was rebuilt with minimal parking. In fact, the parking lot is so small that there is not enough parking for the employees. Employees were forced to instead park on side streets. Residents of the side streets were not happy with cars now parking on both sides of those side streets – as the streets now became too narrow for cars to safely drive on. The residents petitioned the city for parking restrictions, to prevent parking during school hours. Witnessing this Zervas fiasco has made me leery of Newton’s upcoming attempts to plan for development with too little parking.
By the way, I am all for improved public transit in Newton. More bus lines, more frequent buses, better T / commuter rail service are all initiatives that I am entirely in favor of.
I sincerely believe that Newton should continue zoning/planning assuming that people drive (and expect 2 parking spaces per housing unit). If people’s habits change so that less parking is needed in the future, it is easy to convert parking into housing. It is hard to add extra parking after the fact.
I agree with you that some studies show that millenials have a lower rate of car ownership. I even know a few of them – and they all live in Boston, where public transportation is convenient and easy. Newton has a long way to go to compete with Boston on the public transportation front.
Karen, do you have a way to contact you regarding your petition? I’m undecided at this point on a lot of the changes being proposed because the city has not presented any numbers on how all these changes will affect our city over the next 20 years in terms of tax base, traffic, transit, infrastructure, schools, affordability, property values, etc.
I would like to see a petition asking for these projections, performed by outside experts, so we can have an informed discussion on what is best for Newton during this next election.
Laurie, I live on Crafts St. and I sometimes have to wait 10 minutes to get out of my driveway during morning rush to turn INTO traffic and as long again during the evening rush hour (and get routinely yelled at/beeped at because I need to take a left into the driveway and the road is narrow enough at that point that people can’t pass me. )Traffic on Crafts is dense and constant and volume has been increasing over the years, especially tractor trailer trucks (all day and all night). Speed limit is 30mph (even though it has been reduced elsewhere in town to 25mph.) And at night it attracts those with noisy engines and mufflers that race up from Washington Street at high speeds. I do believe that car accidents and pedestrians getting hit by cars has increased as well, although I don’t have the data. I would fathom a guess that the increased development in Newtonville Center and Washington Street corridor is going to increase the volume on Crafts.
Wow, can we get back to Councilor Baker? News flash, he doesn’t like change and votes and advocates to keep Newton the way it is. And would love Newton to roll back to the 1950’s.
Not surprised by his view and statement that “We are a city that likes drives” I would not expect him to vote for, or to even understand transportation issues here in Newton. He hasn’t come up with the changes. I’m sure that Lisle has not ridden a bike in years, nor taken the T or even an Uber in his lifetime.
But the truth is he is not the “demographic” that is poised to change how Newton works, play and travels in and around the city. Unfortunately as a councilor who knows how to run the system, he is a major part of the problem.
Baker is a protectionist and is scared to death of change. Heck he spent his own money to defeat the New Charter so that he could keep his Ward seat.
In one fell swoop he took down city wide voting and term limits which if anyone of those passed he would be done as a city councilor for sure. Here comes the “ole stick in the eye” for the city. Any guesses to who Marc Laredo put in charge of Charter reform on the council? You bet…. Lisle “No way in hell I’m doing anything on Charter Reform” Baker. Will we see 8-8 proposed? 6-6? Term limits? My guess is no. Where is the outrage toward Laredo for that smooth move?
Care to pile on ole’ Lisle? You can also “credit” Lisle for stalling on Accessory Apartments. Yup, he is the reason why accessory apartments took forever to be legal in Newton. Sean mentioned that he loves procedures. Winter Parking ban? ding ding ding Baker is the “winnah”…. Baker is the reason why we have a winter parking ban because he doesn’t want BC kids parking in his ChestnutHill Neighborhood. Marijuana? Yup, Lisle. Affordable housing options near the T. sigh…Lisle
Ok, I’m surely not a fan of Lisle Baker because he doesn’t represent the younger generation of newton families who want to see progress in the city.
But give him credit, he consistently does his best to keep Newton from moving forward. For me, Lisle Baker is outdated and bad for Newton. But others may have different options.
Okay thanks for reading. Now back to the Brendan and Jim show.
oh @Jim“Epstine” Brendan….the dudes name is BRENDAN….B. R. E. N. D. A. N. not Brenda.
Thanks for the further insight into Councilor Baker, Jack. Horrifying, yet entertainingly written.
[Update: Jim has since said that he was not taunting Brendan, but mistakenly misspelled Brendan’s name. I have no reason to doubt him and retract the following. — Sean ]
Brendan,
I was going to block Jim for the taunting, but figured you weren’t the type to be offended by being called a girl’s name.
Jim,
Feel free to refer to me as Seana.
I have young kids, and when they get older I’d like for them to be able to ride their bicycles from point A to point B in Newton safely. As a lifelong bike rider, I used to ride my bike on the sidewalks from the age of 6 or 7 (which I know, isn’t safe but as a kid what else are you gonna do?)
I would not allow my children to ride in the streets of Newton with the bike lanes as they are (not until they are like 21…)
Although I have a few criticisms, the Comm Ave construction near BU has it correct, where it has (from left to right) the vehicle roadway, parked cars, bike lane, then sidewalk. Whether this advisable on Washington St is another matter, but it should be seriously considered.
Sean, “taunting”??? I misread the name.
Fear of change can lead to denial of the need to change. This thread has made me think of Bruce Hornsby’s “that’s just the way it is”.
I don’t accept that we in Newton can’t have what Davis, Boulder, Corvallis, Minneapolis, Enschede, Groningen, West Sacramento, or the suburbs of Amsterdam have because of some innate characteristic Newton has that restricts us largely to single occupancy cars. Lisle Baker routinely driving across Newton alone in his car is a heartbreaking image.
We can have quality of life in Newton. There is nothing magical about the geography or character or abilities of the people that live in those other cities that we don’t have. We need to get beyond the fear that we can’t do it. Envision it and we can have it.
I’m not afraid of change. However, one persons “quality of life” may not be exactly the same as another’s.
And, in fact there are geographic, cultural, and political differences between all areas and to ignore those is to set yourself up for failure. I think if you told the people in the Amsterdam photos that they shouldn’t pole their kids into a four seat bicycle without helmets I can hear them laughing already. You might as well ask them to wear a helmet while walking. For that matter think how many lives would be saved if we all wore helmets while driving.
@Nathan: I agree that we should move forward and become a less car centric city and state. But we need to build in invest in our public transit system not just re-constructing/reconfigurating Washington Street or any other street in isolation. In addition to making our roads safer for all modes of transport we need to increase the level of service of our public transit system. We are not seeing movement towards that. The MBTA’s Better Bus proposal cutting back service . For those who say we need to build more density in order to get the MBTA to increase its service to Newton, I say – please take a look at the Commuter Rail. The schedule changes they made a few years back cut out service in denser Newton and kept service in less dense Wellesley. That doesn’t give people much confidence.
Councilor Baker driving to West Newton in a single-occupancy car is not nearly as frightening as what I see when I’m on the Pike at almost anytime during the day. Single-occupancy cars stuck in traffic headed into or out of Boston. People will opt for the most efficient and reliable way to get in and out of Boston.
@ Karen,
Your argument makes absolutely no sense. The fact that a school in the middle of town doesn’t have enough parking has nothing to do with a housing development located directly on the commuter rail.
By requiring developers to provide two parking spaces per unit it would make some projects unfeasible. Construction costs in this town are astronomical and taking away livable space for parking will force developers to require a higher rent per square foot. These are simple economics. Of course developers will always try to get the highest rents they can, but we shouldn’t make projects unfeasible by requiring excessive parking.
I look forward to seeing both 28 Austin and the Orr Project completed. I believe both will provide important data which will support reduced parking ratios and further development.
Amy, I agree with you. That’s why I strongly support Boston City Councilor Michelle Wu’s leadership in demanding that the MBTA not raise fares, and her leadership in proposing that public transit be free. Moreover, I support the longstanding efforts of Rep Kay Khan and our Newton Councilors to improve service and accessibility of the three Framingham-Worcester Commuter Rail stops in Newton. It’s not either/or; it’s both/and regarding public transit and walkable/bikeable streets.
None of this is easy but we need to advocate like hell to demand better public transit. I don’t accept a “that’s just the way it is; some things will never change” argument I hear from some in Newton (not you) to give up on our public transit or wait for someone else to advocate for it.
I don’t understand why people think that if you make driving more expensive or less convenient families are going to give up their cars. The things that will make people give up their cars are improved and reliable public transit, safe sidewalks for pedestrians, and yes, bike lanes. But those improvements MUST come first.
Jim – I didn’t think you were taunting me, I was pretty sure you just misread my name. I also don’t consider being called a woman’s name a taunt.
Newton and the rest of the Boston metro sorely need increased investments in transit as well as improvements for walking and biking. Hopefully the people in our city who want safer streets, cleaner air and more vibrant village centers that serve the surrounding neighborhoods and attract visitors will let their city councilors know. I’m sure some even live in Lisle Baker’s ward!
Many families buy cars for their kids . . . . and now that I have a teenager, I know why. While we live near the green line, and my teenager can get to Fenway Park, North Station, the MFA, Newton Centre and Waban via public transportation,.
My kid can not easily get to (since he doesn’t have a car) nor is there a bus available from where we live:
The YMCA or JCC to work out
The Newton Public Library
Washington Street
The Boys and Girls Club
Newton North (he can walk 1.8 miles to Newton South, but takes the school bus)
I won’t allow my teen to ride his bike in Newton (even with a helmet) due to the narrow streets and too many cars. So either, I drive him (and his sister) or he doesn’t go.
During school vacation he went to Boston Public Market for lunch since it was easier for him to get into Boston than to the Rox Diner in Newtonville.
He can’t hang out with friends from the North side unless a parent/teen is able to drive. We encourage car ownership (and many three car families) due to the lack of public transportation available for non car owners.
@newton mom
It didn’t exist when my kids were in high school, but now when my son is home he and his friends use Lyft. Especially if they’re going out to a nightclub.
I was volunteering teaching programming last year at MIT to middle schoolers and because of the lack of parking and the fact that I had to schlep a bunch of hardware each week I took a Lyft each way. Very convenient.
Obviously it’s not the cheapest way to go but since parking was 20 dollars and nearly a mile away from where I had to be I figured I only paid for 1 trip.
Hi @Kyle, I also look forward to 28 Austin being completed, so that Newton will have important data. I hope that this data will feed into the upcoming (and ambitious!) proposed projects of Northland & Riverside.
I understand that 28 Austin is on a commuter rail, which is great for people to commute into the city. However, I believe that households will still want cars to drive to Newton locations that are not reachable by mass transit today.
I just don’t see one car per household being enough for the average family in Newton today. I would love to see Newton build a public transportation system that makes one care per household feasible.
The point that I was trying to make about the Zervas fiasco is that this is one example of Newton failing to plan for enough parking. I am hoping that Newton learns from this lesson when as development proceeds at locations that are not along a commuter rail / MBTA (such as Northland).
I would be interested in seeing the study/data that supports the statement: By requiring developers to provide two parking spaces per unit it would make some projects unfeasible. (By the way, I’m not expecting this info to come from this lively message board – I am hoping that a Newton committee already has this info…).
It may be helpful if Newton was a little more clear on its goals: Is Newton trying to reduce how much people drive (in terms of miles driven per household)? Or is Newton trying to reduce the number of cars that are owned by each household?
I’m in favor of Newton providing better public transport, with the goal of reducing how much people drive. That makes complete sense to me.
I guess the (upcoming) data from 28 Austin will show us whether Newton can succeed in reducing the number of cars owned by each household at that site.
Welcome to the vicious cycle. @NewtonMom writes: “I won’t allow my teen to ride his bike in Newton (even with a helmet) due to the narrow streets and too many cars. So either, I drive him (and his sister) or he doesn’t go.”
The cars make streets too dangerous, so our answer is to put kids in cars. So the streets stay dangerous because…. wait for it… there are too many cars.
She also writes that public transportation doesn’t go to the places where here kids want or need to go. Also true. But our answer, for now, has been to solve these problems by providing a car.
We are putting our personal solutions ahead of the greater good. If we, as a city, decide to solve these problems then we can. But if we just throw our hands up and say “it’s just going to stay this way” then we’re creating a city in which it is only safe for people who are behind the wheel and are saying to those who can’t be behind the wheel for whatever reason (age, cost, etc.) “you don’t belong on our streets, nor do you belong in our neighborhoods.”
Is that who we are?
First of all, councilor Baker is one of the great, unsung heroes of Newton, a public servant who has served the Garden City with dignity and modesty. May he serve as long as he desires!
Now I differ slightly in perspective on this issue of bikes and cars, but let’s all get away from the destructive tendency to see all struggles as Manichean, i.e. between light and darkness. Sometimes, both sides of a debate have valid points to make. Witness the dynamic between the tree conservationists and supporters of solar energy. The city is struggling to craft a compromise that preserves as many trees as possible while engendering greater production of solar power. We are getting there, which is admirable.
Anyone who has spent time in leading European cities and in Israel knows that bicycles and automobiles can coexist. Granted, we cyclists have a tough time selling this model in Newton, in part because the roads are so unfriendly and the weather often uncooperative. Of course, I sometimes drive places in my car, and I never bike at night- too scary for this old man.
It may take years, but Newton’s streets can someday become places where cars can drive while pedestrians can safely walk and bikers safely ride. Besides improvements in roadways, sidewalks, and bike paths, Newton will need better infrastructure, such as its own shuttle buses. Other locales (Martha’s Vineyard comes to mind) have experimented with inexpensive bus service and found an ever-increasing constituency after a slow start. Right now, to be sure, nothing of the sort exists locally.
My suggestion: let’s stop hurling accusations of conspiracies and elitism and start planning for the day when it’s easier to get around without relying as much on automobiles. It won’t be free- it won’t even be inexpensive. But it is possible.
Bob Jampol,
Since you elect to bring up compromise between solar panel installation and cutting down trees in Newton (comparing it to cars and bikes), that is a poor analogy. To cut down even one valuable/healthy tree for solar power panels is more than unfortunate and is horrible policy. Since electricity is fungible, solar power panels (when installation otherwise entails removing trees) should be relegated to the sunny, desert, treeless desolate southwest. To substitute panels for trees is merely a money generating hoax for contractors and others — aside from its environmental, aesthetic, quality of life and property value harm.
“The cars make streets too dangerous, so our answer is to put kids in cars. So the streets stay dangerous because…. wait for it… there are too many cars.”
Of course she does. That’s what any sensible mother would do.
When Mayor Fuller rides a lime bike with a basket to city hall everyday, instead of just posing for a photo – op in Tab, I’ll believe that biking has become mainstream in Newton. That’s what leaders do, right? Lead?
So Lyft and Uber are not supposed to be picking up kids under 18, so that isn’t an option for my two kids. I realize that many teens in Newton use the service, but it isn’t something I want to do for my family. We utilize carpooling when we can, but my kids depend on their parents for rides. For now, my teens will go to Newton Centre via Green Line to hang with their friends who can get there. But wouldn’t it be great for us to have some sort of transportation that isn’t the Green Line, but yet travels around Newton, so people can get from the north side to the south side, and the like?
Friends- W certainly DON”T want to start a war between advocates of cars and advocates of walking/biking. We don’t want to have people yelling at each other and blaming each other for our troubles.
What we want are options – we want safer streets for walking and biking – how would anyone disagree with that? I think we also want to have our scarce Newton land to be used for its highest and best use. If we can avoid large parking lots that are barely used – we can all agree on that. There is a lot to ponder and try to get right – but we don’t need to fight.
The argument raised about Zervas is interesting. Perhaps the writer doesn’t realize that the City took 3 homes by eminent domain and put that land to use as the parking lot. All our schools are on very constrained sites. We had a similar problem with Cabot. In order to build a
new Cabot that meets today’s educational standards and classroom sizes, the architects needed to take the land where there was an existing small lot for the school. As a result the architect wanted to make a parking lot in Cabot Park. To me – this was a crazy idea. Is the highest and best use of that land to change its use from a Park to a parking lot? Thank heavens the Parks and Recreation Commission said NO. So some cars will be in the Cabot assisted living parking lot and other cars will be on East Side Parkway. To me, it seems very appropriate to have cars parked on the public streets. Which brings me back to Zervas. Would the highest and best use of the land at Zervas to take away a playground and make it into a bigger parking lot? I don’t think so. Overflow cars can park on city streets. I know that many people feel entitled that the street in front of their home belongs to them – but it doesn’t. I think it was a better use of land to have overflow cars park on the street.
We are going through a change in thinking about parking spaces and parking lots. We have a lot of people who need a place to live – is the highest and best use of the land to put it into parking lots or into housing? So – you say – this really shouldn’t be a choice because people who live in houses have cars. Yes – they do. And the reason they (we) all do is that the car modified our development practices back in the 50s. The cars brought us suburbs and urban sprawl. People used to live in cities but cars made it possible to spread out.
Now – we see that this mode of development has brought us an even bigger problem. So many cars have brought us climate change. The Mass Pike is a slow-moving parking lot at rush hour. And, investment in public transportation has not been nearly enough. BTW – as an aside – many councilors just sent a letter to Secretary Pollack objecting to the fare increase. We think that increases ought to come from other areas to get people out of cars. We don’t want to disincentivize the use of public transportation by raising fares. Perhaps, as a separate post, I can post the letter we sent this week.
In this time of change – we are looking for the right way to handle cars. Taking away parking minimums is what so many cities and towns are doing. It is a leap of faith for many of us to think that providing less parking will work. I don’t live near a village center and usually, I don’t walk to Newtonville or Newton Ctr in the winter. I do walk to city hall.
We are NEVER going to require that people stop driving – that goes without saying. What we want to do is make it safer for those who want to walk or bike. Even a 5% difference in the number of cars on our streets would make a huge difference in congestion. We have just begun this work – seriously. After decades of only caring about cars it is only within the last few years that we have begun to say – no wait, the public realm belongs to walkers and bikers too. It will take time to get that 5% more people out of cars. BUT – you can be sure it will never happen if we don’t try. We haven’t forgotten that drivers need a place to park – this is very much on the minds of Councilors.
With respect to Cambridge – we know that they didn’t meet their target to reduce car ownership – but did they reduce the number of miles traveled? That is what we need to know.
So – warning- here comes my Pollyanna side. Let’s try to stop thinking that the other side is nuts. For the sake of the environment and preservation of the highest and best use of our scarce land, let’s try to figure things out. If you don’t agree with a particular part of the proposed zoning code for either Washington st or the whole city – put your comments and suggestions into writing. Every single comment and suggestion is being read. Let’s find the right way to make our city work for everyone. Please – those of you with absolutely no interest in walking or biking in Newton – NO ONE is taking away your right to drive. We are just looking for ways to reduce congestion and make Newton safer. This will come slowly. We may even make some missteps along the way. BUT we may get some things right and that will be wonderful for all of us.
I look forward to reading your suggestions how to make the proposed codes more to your liking.
@Newtonmom
There was exactly such a shuttle 20 year or so ago. My wife worked on the committee. It failed to generate interest.
My opinion, fwiw, is that the reason the buses failed is that they didn’t look like buses. They looked like those LocalMotion Van/buses.
So people didn’t know what they were. And you were supposed to wave them down.
So it failed.
If you’re going to put in “shuttle” buses, that’s the mistake. Make it look like a T bus, and people will “get it”.
Otherwise people don’t know what it is.
@ Susan
“Overflow cars can park on city streets. I know that many people feel entitled that the street in front of their home belongs to them – but it doesn’t. I think it was a better use of land to have overflow cars park on the street.”
I agree.
I think the streets around Newton Center should have all day parking. As I’ve said many times, I used to park over by Crystal Lake and walk to my office in Newton Center. Now, those streets are restricted to 3 hours so I have to park in the lot.
I would propose changing those street to allow unrestricted parking, as they used to be.
Rick
Hi @Susan Albright, Thanks very much for your comments on Zervas. Actually, I am aware that Newton purchased 3 homes to expand the size of the Zervas lot. To be honest, I don’t know if the parking lot at Zervas was reduced when the new facility was built, or if the amount of employees increased. All I know is that the Zervas area appears (to me) to be more congested today than it was with the old Zervas building during school drop offs/pickups. And I know that the overflow employee parking issue started when the new Zervas building was opened.
I don’t believe that it was consciously planned for Zervas employee parking to overflow to residential side streets. At least, if this was the plan, then I don’t recall this being mentioned in the various Zervas web announcements that were published during the Zervas proposal and construction period. If was the plan all along, then perhaps this could have been communicated to surrounding neighborhood a bit better.
As I read up on upcoming development proposals in Newton (including Washington Street, Northbridge), I don’t recall a suggestion that those neighborhood side streets are expected to absorb overflow parking. But if I missed something in those development proposals/presentations, I would appreciate being corrected on this.
Thanks!
I want to be clear about something: I’m not criticizing @NewtonMom or anyone for putting their kids in cars for safety purposes. My question is about us as a community and related more to the original post. That is, do we want to be a city that only drives and gives our landscape over to cars? Or do we want to be one where it’s safe to also walk and bike?
And, if we are committed to being a more inclusive city so that everyone has the ability to get around, how do we get from here to there?
I just came back from the Atlanta suburbs where cars rule the landscape. Roads that connect commerce are 6, 8 or 10 lanes wide, meaning that no pedestrian can easily cross them. Strangely, these same suburbs are building contained walkable villages that don’t connect, except by car. Even the Braves built a small contained city within the suburban landscape just so they can be more like Fenway.
They are trying to build what we already have. In my opinion, we should be looking to enhance that pedestrian experience, not throw it away.
There isn’t enough parking for staff/teachers at most elementary schools so they park on nearby streets – as Councilor Albright mentioned, streets owned and maintained by the city. This isn’t unusual or anything new. In fact it’s been going on for years. More to the point, I don’t know what elementary staff/teacher parking has to do walking/biking/driving issues in the city.
I live a block and a half from Zervas and it’s busy, but not overwhelmingly so, for 20 minutes at drop off and 20 minutes at pick up times. Other than those times of the day, it’s a remarkably quiet section of the city.
@karen I wasn’t’ on the Zervas working group so I don’t remember whether or not the plan included parking on the streets. If you want me to – I can go back and read the plans – just email me and let me know. As for Northland – they are supposed to have enough parking on site to meet the demand. We don’t have a project yet on Washington st – but I would think that any large project will be expected to meet the demand created by the project. Deciding what the demand is – is the tricky part.
Any school project is difficult because of space constraints. We had the same conversations about parking with the new Newton North High School. We needed to have parking lots for teachers and on-street parking for students – which we have on Hull St – and various other places around the school.
I thank you for your comments.
The key here for me is the point made by Councilor Albright: this is not about cars vs. pedestrians. This is about how to plan for complete streets that give people options and balance the needs for public transportation, cars, bikes, walkers, and traffic safety.
There’s no easy answer or single solution, but it’s an important conversation to be having.
@Karen: re: Zervas, how is parking on public streets like Allen “unsafe”?
@Susan Albright thanks for your thoughtful explanations. We all appreciate the serious thought and discussion that you all are giving to these issues. I attended the meeting and found the comments by you and the other councilors to be very thoughtful, wide-ranging and on-point.
It would also be helpful if you could shed some light on the insinuation in the original post that Councilor Baker was being “sneering, sexist, chauvinistic and patronizing” towards you, in particular, and others in the council meeting in question. That certainly wasn’t my interpretation of his behavior at that meeting or at any other time. Those types of serious accusations really should not go unanswered.
I am late to reading this column and these posts. All I can report is simply that a number of citizens have expressed concerns that what is being proposed for Washington Street is not yet wise policy. In this case, I have tried to express my reservations about larger scale development, removing parking minimums and reducing travel lanes without better alternatives. (For the record, I chaired a Committee of the Boston Bar Association that advocated for bicycle incentives as far back as the mid-1970’s and I regularly rode my bike to work downtown.) More important, I hope that the tone of Mr. Roche’s sidebar comments does not chill the willingness of others to express their concerns about whatever is proposed so that the Council can work through what makes sense, recognizing that reasonable people may still disagree. Also, I hope that those who have worked with me have felt treated fairly and respectfully. If not, I will try to make it right, as we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. In the meantime, I am glad to talk in person with anyone on this forum or otherwise, including Mr. Roche, and my home phone is 617-566-3848. Thank you. – Councilor Lisle Baker
Thanks Councilor Baker for weighing in. Interesting to learn that you biked to work in Boston…reminds me of my dad, and counter to the narrative the “Mr Roche” chose to paint. I for one was offended with his dog whistle referring to your use of urban as “code”
As on the Charles River and the Boardwalks in Southern California, to lane sidewalk traffic to everything that doesn’t have a motor.
Now cyclists get to treat the slower, foot traffic the way they want to be treated on the road.
Instead of trying to configure a road that supports something that has the power of 200 horses to something that is pedaled by a single human; create great sidewalks that support the passage of bipedal modes of transport.
Hi @Adam,
My concern is when cars park on both sides of a narrow road, the drivable road can become too narrow for two cars to safely pass each other. My concern is when parking overflows to narrow side streets.
Actually, Allen and Beethoven are in Newton’s top 10 list of streets with a high number of incidents (speeding, accidents). If interested, the following page has a few ‘traffic calming’ links with more info:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/transportation_planning_/initiatives/default.asp
Allen is one of the wider roads in the Zervas area. It seems to me that Allen is a safe road for parked cars. I’m not aware of any parking restrictions on Allen. Until traffic calming is implemented, I think that people just need to be a little careful about speeding cars.
Beethoven is one of the more narrow roads in the area. When cars park on both sides of Beethoven, the road basically can become a one-way road in parts. This depends on how close cars park to the curb (and how wide the cars are). Also, Beethoven has one small hill that prevents a driver from seeing an oncoming car. This one spot is especially dangerous when Beethoven narrows to a one-way street on this spot (due to parked cars).
Some time after the new Zervas was built, Newton added parking restrictions on a few side streets north of Beacon, near Zervas. I presume that residents asked the city to restrict parking (during school hours) due to concerns of street width. But I’m just hazarding a best guess here.
I’m not sure why parking was restricted on both sides of those side streets. It seems to me that restricting parking on just one side of the street would have been sufficient.
During baseball season, Beethoven has restricted parking on one side of the street near Richardson field. This seems to allow safe traffic flow during baseball season. Other parts of Beethoven allow parking on both sides of the street (even during baseball season) – these parts of the Beethoven can become one-way due to parked cars.
1. Know that Village14 is biased – pro development (Greg) and carbon reduction (Sean) and any opinions to the contrary will not be published here – other than the comments of you fine folks.
2. Why does a biking lifestyle have to include large, dense developments? When does adding more EVER equal less?
3. We live in New England. For health reasons, I very much enjoy a walk or run thru the streets of Newton. But this is not San Diego. Winters are cold and wet. Took a few nasty falls on ice a couple of weeks ago. Summers include many oppressively humid days. And we wonder why people drive?
4. We drive 3 miles down Route 9 weekly to Wegman’s. We both work full and 1 trip per week is all the time we have. As a family of 3, there are up to 6 grocery bags per week. Tell me how I’m going carry all of that on a bike?? Even if 6 grocery bags can miraculously fit on the back of a bike, have you all seen how hilly Route 9 is?
If folks can’t tell, I’m very much against these mega developments (Northland, Riverside, Washington St). No more so than I want to invite 2 more families to live in our little house. It’s simply a matter of physics. And don’t come at me with the race card angle. We’ve purchased and lived happily across a number Boston neighboods. In our 20s and early 30s, we wanted density, vibrancy, walk ability. Now in our late 40s, with family, we came to Newton because we wanted some “suburban” – while not being too far from Boston. A balance we (and you all) pay dearly for.
And as for biking…aspirational but not realistic for New England. Boston and Brookline have redesigned many streets to include dedicated bike lanes. Beijing, Ho Chi Minh City, or Mumbai these bike lanes are not – mostly unused.
Finally, what we have are a small number of vocal residents speaking up on these topics – here on Village14, NextDoor, even Facebook. Perhaps Councilor Baker was lauded for his comments because there is a silent majority who disagree with the few who are vocal. Or simply frustrated that more councilors are not taking a definitive stance on the direction Newton is going. The next election should be interesting.
@Councilor Baker. Thanks for bringing some dignity and rationality to this discussion. (Not that it hasn’t been present in some of the other comments as well)
@kim
I was just talking with a friend about this the other day and there’s a lot of sense to it. That is, is it really worse for bicycles to be near walkers ( i.e. on the sidewalks) than in the street? I’m thinking here about the lime bike / no helmet casual kind of biking, not the 15 mile commuter. The scale of the car/bike vs casual bike / pedestrian seems more appropriate for a sidewalk for the latter. On the lime bike you’re probably going about 5-10 mph max and when I was bike commuting I often used the sidewalk when the road got too risky / crowded.
@Karen I strongly support traffic calming changes to Allen and Beethoven. The Safe Routes to School Task Force that I chair, lobbied to have these changes in place when Zervas reopened so that children walking to school would be safer and to encourage more students to walk to school. We didn’t win on that, but we did successfully influence a more walkable school site including keeping Beethoven in front of the school a safer width. On that note, more of the design and planning process related to schools should be spent on creating a safe, walkable, bikeable school. Part of the planning process should be how children from every neighborhood will get to school and what can be done to create easy walk and bike routes for our children’s health, for the environment, to reduce congestion, …
The other thing that has increased traffic since I was a boy is the dual incident me family. My mother and father had 2 cars. But that was because at that time we lived in a rural area and my mom had to drive us to the dentist, piano lessons and all that. No sidewalks. But just thinking back most of my aunts didn’t drive and if they did it was after their husband died. Many if not most of my friends on my street had stay at home moms. So even if they had a car they weren’t involved in rush hour traffic. And here’s an oldie but goody – why does Horace Mann school not have a cafeteria? Because the kids would walk home for lunch.
So all this traffic has happened in my lifetime and the entrance of women into the workforce and the purchase of second cars. And our society was happy to sell the extra cars. Now we have to undo this problem.
Sorry for the typos
Re Rick Frank’s comment, I more than agree. For the sake of safety, if I were riding a bike, for example, say southbound on Walnut Street between Homer and Beacon, I sure as heck would be riding on the sidewalk, adjacent to Newton Cemetery, rather than on the street where bikers are directed. Or, if I were riding a bike, say, eastbound on Commonwealth Ave. where there exists the Carriage Lane, I’d certainly be riding on the Carriage Lane rather than on Comm Ave’s eastbound marked bike lane. (How much has the City of Newton spent on painting these bike lanes and on-street bike directives pointing bike riders to unsafe riding with false sense of safety by virtue of those markings?)
You don’t ride on the sidewalk unless really necessary (eg along cemetery). This is dangerous as people and cars don’t expect anything moving past 10 mph on the sidewalks.
Otherwise you ride in the bike lane if safe to do so, and if necessary in the center of the vehicular lane.
Yes it’ll annoy drivers but it’s safest this way. Too many times have I been passed by cars who do not change lanes to pass and almost sideswipe me. Also for vehicles passing within a foot – feels safe for the driver, feels extremely dangerous to the cyclist.
Many bicycle collisions happen when cyclists ride on sidewalks, perhaps even the majority of collisions. In addition to what Nelson says, that nobody is looking for things on sidewalks moving at that speed and there often isn’t sufficient line of sight to see bicycles approaching. Also the transitions from sidewalk to street are extremely dangerous. A cyclists would have to dismount at each intersection and proceed at the speed of a pedestrian to be safe.
Re Nelson Wong’s and Adam’s comments: Cyclists can always slow down on sidewalks when need be, which inconvenience is certainly less than the serious risk to cyclists mingling with vehicular traffic at those locales. As Nelson Wong himself admits — which proves my point — “[he has been] passed by cars who do not change lanes to pass and almost sideswipe me. Also for vehicles passing within a foot – feels safe for the driver, feels extremely dangerous to the cyclist.”
Interesting how you interpret it as a cyclists having to give up their road rights to vehicles rather than on vehicles passing illegally or dangerously to cyclists.
Also, depending on locality and area, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalks.
Nelson, it’s not a matter of cyclists giving up road rights. OK, they have road rights, but they’re still injured or killed — because car drivers will be car drivers despite bikes, the latter which is inherently dangerous when commingling with tons of steel going far faster speeds. So bike riders may be in the right, unfortunately they may too often be dead right.
Jim — no, bikes on the sidewalk shouldn’t just slow down approaching an intersection. If you’re riding on the sidewalk, you’ve got to stop, get off your bike, and walk across every intersection. Anyone who thinks they can ride off a sidewalk into an intersection, either with or against traffic, is setting themselves up for trouble. Sidewalks aren’t built for bikes. I’ve ridden the stretch of bike lane you cite on Walnut many times and felt perfectly safe.
Karen — parking certainly is complicated. I fear when we say “unsafe” we often conflate dangerous situations with changes which are unwelcome to drivers or abutters. I think we’ve established that there is ample on-street parking in the right places, and also many places where parking restrictions are needed due to line of sight or saturated parking situations making it difficult for cars to pass. I’d suggest that in the right circumstances cars having to slow, stop and yield to oncoming traffic is not unsafe at all, but an effective form of traffic calming, as is on street parking on an excessively wide street like Allen. Claiming additional public land to pave and use for car storage not 24×7 but 8×5 is a horrible use of public resources and bad for the environment. We’ve already taken two homes by imminent domain to build parking. I’m glad we didn’t take any more.
Adam, under Massachusetts law:
(1) “You may ride your bicycle on any public road, street, or bikeway in the Commonwealth, except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bikes have been posted.”
(2) “You may ride on sidewalks outside business districts, unless local laws prohibit sidewalk riding.”
Hi @Adam,
I agree that parking can be complicated. That is why I think future development proposals should be more clear with their parking plans and impact.
The main point that I am trying to make is: the Zervas proposals did not clearly state that it was planned for some employee parking to spill over onto side streets. I presume that either this was an unplanned consequence of the Zervas development, or that this was planned (but kept quiet).
I mentioning Zervas as an example because the Zervas project was a smaller project compared to the big, upcoming proposed projects (Northland, Washington Street).
I think that Newton development proposals should be clear in both the anticipated parking and driving impact. On upcoming projects, I’ve heard some say: all parking is planned to remain on the development site. I’ve heard others say: some parking is planned to overflow on side streets. I’m concerned that I’ve heard a few Newton city councilors make these conflicting statements.
I understand that Northland is project likely to be developed soonest. I’ve heard a few Newton city councilors propose a 20%-30% fewer parking spaces at Northland compared to what is required by today’s zoning.
I assume that Newton is retaining professionals to study the traffic & parking impact of this proposed reduced parking at Northland.
I am interested to learn what is the anticipated amount of overflow parking from Northland residents and/or future businesses at Northland.
I know that a number of Newton city councilors are assuming that people will own fewer cars and drive less. I think this assumption is wishful thinking. Until this assumption is proven to bear out in Newton, then I think it is prudent for the Northland project to have a parking plan based on how most Newton residents live today.
I have just returned from Delhi, India, where trucks, cars, taxis, auto rickshaws, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians all share the roadways (as well as a lot of dogs and livestock), and it has really given me a lot to think about in terms of transportation and “complete streets.” And when I recover from jet lag, I plan to share some of those thoughts. In the meantime, I find it remarkable that in one of the most densely populated urban areas in the world, so many different modes of transportation share the same roadways without experiencing the parade of horribles so often expressed here, in comparatively much less densely populated and developed Newton.
@Ted Hess-Mahan: “without experiencing the parade of horribles” is not quite accurate. India’s accident statistics are dismal. Per capita traffic fatalities are 1.5 higher and per vehicle deaths are 10 times higher than the US (probably a lot higher than that because of inaccurate reporting).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
@Ted, I’m interested in what your thoughts are. I’ve walked and was driven in Delhi and other places a number of years ago and holy smokes! It took a while to become accustomed to the chaos on the roads.
Interesting anecdote: upon arriving st the airport we had a driver accompany us for most of our trip through a Delhi and the Golden Triangle. When we got to the car, the side view mirrors were folded closer and I opened them. My driver gently said no, please close them, as he didn’t want them to get smashed.
It’s because there you are expected to beep frequently and often to announce your presence. It’s brilliant, really, because with sound you can pinpoint very quickly the location of a sound versus visual confirmation which is dangerous in India – you could hit something easily if you take your eyes off the road.
I’d have to second Netwoner’s sentiment, although I’ve never believed there to be any truly meaningful statistical measure of road safety across different countries – it’s one of those things where you just have to know it when you see it. And in that respect, India is truly the absolute last place on Earth from which I would draw any lessons on road use. Indian roads are “complete” alright – a complete mess where safety, efficiency, and life are assigned almost zero value.
I’ve been racking my brain, and I can’t think of anyplace that comes even close to Indian cities in terms of roadway danger, deficiency, and decrepitude, except maybe Dhaka or Manila. The worst I’ve seen in Africa is Kinshasa, Khartoum, and N’djamena, but their roads are Autobahn-like in comparison to India’s. Can anyone else think of a contender for world’s worst roads? Mexico often comes in last in the statistical measures, but most of those deaths are from speeding, alcohol, and recklessness on what are actually pretty decent interstate highways.
On the other end of the spectrum, the absolute best roads for all users (motorists, public transit users, cyclists, pedestrians, dogs, cats, and pigeons) are in Holland. Again, no place else comes close in terms consistency – not Germany, not Denmark, not Luxembourg, not Switzerland, not Singapore. If anyone wants to learn anything about well-designed, efficient, comfortable, consistent, safe roadways for everyone involved, then Holland is the place to look.
Having said that, I am looking forward to Ted’s observations from Delhi.
Horrified by the original post about councilor Baker’s remarks, I am gratified that some civility is returning to our discourse here. Debate between opposing schools of thought is helpful, especially if people afterward seek the common ground to lead us forward. But residents in Newton need not adopt the attack mentality so obviously prevalent in the twitter posts emanating from Washington. Politics is the art of the possible, it has been said, and compromise rarely springs from ad hominem attacks on opponents.
What gives the discussion of bicycles and cars such urgency are the recent deaths of several cyclists at the hands of trucks and automobiles. I view cycling as a virtue in many ways, and I hope that communities in the Boston area find ways of making it more possible for drivers and cyclists to coexist. Changes won’t come cheaply, I concede. Bike Newton, to which I belong, is preparing some presentations on how roads can be engineered to mutual benefit.
Delhi traffic congestion and driving habits are VERY different from here. The car horn is used more often than directional signals and two and three lane roads are treated like 5 or 6 lanes, so I don’t mean to suggest I would like Newton to be more like that. Unlike Greater Boston, however, Delhi has a 15 year old METRO system subway that has both spokes and rings around the central hub in Old Delhi. The METRO is much lower priced than an Uber (or Ola), and has mostly replaced or supplemented the many bus lines that used to make Delhi traffic even more congested and dangerous than it is now. You can get almost anywhere and the stations and coaches are clean, comfortable, and safe. They even have “ladies only” cars which offer welcome relief from “manspreading” and other problems uniquely linked to male commuters.
What I would also say is that, despite the congestion and traffic, it is amazing to see that every mode of transportation is represented on all roadways. Drivers, cyclists , pedestrians, and rickshaws accommodate every other mode of transportation on the roads because they have to. And Delhi’s urban planners, by necessity, must address the challenges associated with these different modes of transportation in redesigning streets to adapt to existing conditions. There are speed bumps everywhere, and narrow streets and alleys that tend to slow people down but still allow the traffic to move along. Nevertheless, the congestion creates tremendous chellenges.
Delhi is by no means ideal, but the level of vitality in the “village centers” throughout the city is unparalleled anywhere in America that I have ever been. There are fresh vegetable and fruit stands everywhere on the streets and sidewalks, small grocery stores, and many other amenities within walking distance everywhere you look. Vendors deliver milk and produce, and it is a major part of the social fabric and commercial fabric of Delhi, as residents come down to get their deliveries while swapping news and views on the streets and sidewalks. I recognize, of course, that the clement temperatures even in winter (it averaged 75 degrees in the day and never got below 60 degrees at night while we were there) contribute to the vitality of the street scene, but the fact that almost everything you need on a daily basis is a short walking distance away is a substantial factor. And that is something I would like to see in Newton’s village centers.
Since there seems to be effort by parts of Newton City Council to crowd and cheapen Newton housing for social justice, perhaps comparison to Delhi is apt.
Jim Epstein, um, no. That’s just a prejudiced comment on so many levels.
Ted, um, for you assistance in looking into it, may I suggest looking at the Village 14 posting and thread : “Newton’s zoning reform; addressing race, class, and the future of our city by Brenda Noel | Feb 12, 2019 | Affordable housing, City Council, zoning.”
In that connection, tell me where there is error by my reiterating that “there is at least one elected City Councilor who, as documented, professes that “social justice” and “social change” should everywhere trump the “free market” by her aiming to lower home asset value throughout the city. That City Councilor seeks to achieve this through redesign of Newton Zoning to achieve what can be called, “Degentrification” of Newton.”
As I said, this is proposed to be accomplished by zoning for crowding (in terms of density) and cheapening (in terms of price and affordability) Newton housing. How is this prejudiced unless you mean I am prejudiced against lowering housing asset value spread throughout Newton?
Jim, you know I meant your comment drawing a negative comparison to Delhi.
I don’t get paid to put up with BS from people like you anymore. So just knock it off.
Ted, your gratuitous remarks such “BS from people like me anymore” and “knock it off” is inappropriate and stifles serious discussion on whether Newton residents really want greater density and more insertion of much less expensive housing throughout the city — which Delhi’s characteristics in terms of impact on transportation compared to Newton you seem to favor in part, or at least merit looking into.
I hope that a ban on my comments is not coming by virtue of your gratuitous remarks as you’d rather not address my points — but my views DO reflect a sizable portion of Newton residents.
FINALLY some fireworks! This is the kind of stuff that keeps users engaged – forget substance.
Roger McNamee, author of Zucked: Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe was on Greater Boston last night and he touched on all of the psychological manipulation that Facebook and Google use to increase engagement; outrage and fear are key.
e.g. User #1 fears that his city is turning into Delhi, India, and wants others to share his fear!
And User #2 is outraged at #1’s BS!
Engagement: maximized!
Could’ve sworn I closed that first /i tag…
Michael, check the thread, other commenters brought up comparing Delhi transportation etc. to Newton, not me — and I replied the best I could.
@Jim, your comments inject a bias and incivility into the discussion where it is not warranted and not welcome. Ted made some observations and posted them for consumption and you injected “cheapen” and “social justice” into the discussion.
You have a tendency to bring a conservative/liberal divide/slant into the conversation which really doesn’t help the conversation.
Nelson, respectfully I must disagree as I feel that Ted injected the bias and incivility by his language. The word “cheapen” is in terms of price and affordability and the words “social justice” are quoted from a City Councilor in the title of her recent thread in terms of where she wants Newton zoning to go.
Since you raise “a conservative/liberal divide” may I suggest that far too often Newton advocacy and postings reflect only what you may term “liberal” and you see what happens when comments appear which reflect what you may term “conservative” — efforts such as Ted’s to personally disparage the commenter and ban rather than discuss substance.
To be more complete/precise/accurate, the City Councilor uses the exact term “social engineering” to describe/summarize her chief purpose for Newton rezoning as appears in her titled posting and highlights both her exact terms “social justice” and “social change” to describe her purpose for future Newton development on her web page.
@Jim, you are either unclear in your posting at best or being deliberately misleading at worst. You posted, without context, using words like “cheapen” and “social justice” in responding to Ted’s observations about Delhi.
I don’t know exactly what your motivation is, but it is not about substantive discussions about our community (although you veil it as such). Your comments are akin to a guy ranting on a street corner: you’re not actually interested discussion, you just want attention.
As much as it bothers me to just let your comments slide and get posted in this community, I will no longer read or respond to any of your comments anymore.
@mods and the like: we should have better moderation tools where comments like Jim’s derailing a discussion are automatically muted (like in Reddit where you have to click on downvoted comments to see them).
Jim,
You do know that zoning is a significant restriction on the “free market,” right?
Those of us who are taking on zoning reform in the name of social, economic, and environmental justice are trying, largely, to lift restrictions on the market.
Nelson, I think you last comment is a round-about elaborate way of excusing yourself from a substantive discussion as to whether or not Newton rezoning should be directed to increasing density and less expensive (i.e., cheaper) housing spread throughout Newton (with its aim of achieving certain social objectives) without considering impact on nearby property values. Moreover, your effort to have Village 14 entirely ban my input, which input has been certainly within the scope of/response to the topic and ensuing comments, is a way to expand your excuse to restricting the entire site from substantive discussion on the points I have raised. (With all due respect, I have found these to be “liberal” leaning devices to silence debate on uncomfortable and/or difficult issues to address.)
Sean, I certainly recognize that zoning restrictions have impact on the “free market”. Up until now in Newton, those zoning restrictions have been to protect and enhance existing property values. New proposals could or would have the reverse impact — to reduce nearby property value. And that is what needs to be discussed — which per another thread — has been thus far left out by the planning department at the Zoning and Planning meetings.
Jim – Could you explain why you think that increasing density would lead to reduced property values? There are places in Newton where increased density makes sense, like around transit. Changing the zoning to allow this type of development wouldn’t mean that your house will be torn down, simply that a developer or builder would be permitted by-right to build denser housing that some people prefer.
Brendan, if your house were zoned residential with its minimal lot size/setback, and nearby or very nearby there is much higher density housing (apartments, etc.) and thereby or otherwise with much less expensive housing as otherwise exist in the area, tenants, substantially more crowded, smaller/more affordable/economical/economically built units etc., that would certainly negatively impact either your residential house value or quality of life as a resident expecting quite, less density, upgrade homes nearby. Certainly if your aim is to tear down or reconstruct your home and build multi rental units of affordable housing, your property value may increase by that use — but what of the others nearby, and what of changing the nature of Newton. THESE are questions which need to be addressed, that is, preserving/enhancing the residential value of the single home property.
As well, increasing density elsewhere in Newton increases detrimentally traffic and school crowding etc. Having said this, there likely are certain limited areas where higher density housing may be appropriate, but again, what seems to be being proposed is far more extensive and with the aim (by some city officials) of social engineering.
Jim – I’d encourage you to look at studies that have been done on this issue and to look at neighboring towns like Brookline which is much denser than Newton and has even higher property values. I agree with your last paragraph that increased density is not appropriate everywhere. Certainly within .5 miles of transit, especially in and around village centers, higher density could be supported.
As someone who’s spent his life in Newton and Needham, I’m always amused by those who think that suburban Boston has some sort of unique charm or character that needs to be preserved.
This is not Cinque Terre- it’s a collection of cheaply-built houses, nearly all of which are situated on picayune, carcinogenic chem-lawn lots with views into their neighbors’ kitchens, surrounded by poorly-designed roads that have always been and will forever be hopelessly congested.
Notably, the powers that be came up with a means to ensure socioeconomic homogeneity – e.g. zoning laws keeping the price of housing artificially high and local administration of the school systems – but these antisocial devices never should have been allowed in the first place.
At the end of the day, these are dull and not particularly attractive communities – those of you looking for some elusive character or way of life to preserve should head somewhere yonder, because there’s nothing along 128.
Brendan, as I stated, it’s not just density, it is density coupled with affordability coupled with the City Councilor’s aim “we are seeking economic diversity in our city, housing needs to include smaller units that people want and can afford: rental properties because not everyone can afford to buy…”
Brookline higher density areas with higher property values consist of predominately expensive condominiums. Smaller unit rentals catering to the lower affordability rental market is what is being aimed for in Newton per the City Councilor.
Jim – I think that what the councilor is aiming for is to expand the variety and density of housing, where appropriate. I’d recommend you do some reading on the true effects of increased density on housing prices. Where it’s been studied, researchers have found that it actually raises values of existing single family homes. Personally, I would like to see Newton have a mix of people, not just those who can afford to purchase $1 million and up homes. Newton already has apartments which are not “affordable” in the traditional sense. Allowing higher density development will increase the availability of market rate apartments, rents for which are very high in this area. The people that want to rent a 2 bedroom apartment are not the same people that want to buy a 3-4 bedroom, or more, single family house. Increasing the supply of apartments will not decrease the value of expensive homes.
Brendan (or anyone),
The LEAST expensive apartment at Avalon Apts (on Needham St.), just 912 sq ft, currently rents for $3,265 per mo; the LEAST expensive 2 bedroom apartment at Avalon Apts, 1,249 sq ft, currently rents for $3,735 per mo.
I believe these are way over what would be entailed for non-subsidized “affordable housing” for the purposes of true “economic diversity”.
So, what kind of newly constructed Newton apartments are we talking about which will RAISE the value of nearby existing single family homes — if those apts must be of way lower rental rates than Avalon? Is that realistic to think this is even possible in Newton?
Ok, I gotta ask – if this is your take on the Newton-Needham area, why have you spent your whole life here?
When they first began construction of the Avalon apartments back in the late 1990s (completed in 2003) the City was touting how proud they were that a certain number of apartments were designated as affordable or Low income households. The numbers you’ve mentioned doesn’t fit my definition of low rent. Neither does a one-time fee of $2000 dollar deposit per pet (two maximum) and $75.00 per month.
Yes, Tricia – anyone who doesn’t believe that the Newton-Needham area has charm or character, get the hell out!
Love the architecturally-insignificant houses squeezed onto their chem-lawns, or leave them. Simple as that.
@Michael – responses like that are why we can’t have nice things. My question was not a veiled “love it or leave it” message. It’s just a very basic question. Everyone has something they don’t like about the place where they live, and some have many things they don’t like, but they put up with them for one reason or another. What I’m trying to understand is why someone who views an area with such obvious disdain (no unique charm or character, cheaply-built, architecturally-insignificant houses, picayune and carcinogenic chem-lawn lots, poorly designed roads) would choose to stay – and pay a premium to do so.
I don’t know where in Newton you live, but I think my neighborhood of West Newton has some really interesting homes like the Allen House and the Dr. Samuel Warren House, the UU Church, and lots of other sturdy 100+ year old homes with character and charm. Most of the homes have small yards in my neck of the woods and few are pristine. Nonantum, the northern part of Newtonville, and most of Auburndale are similar. Poorly designed roads, sure, I’ll give you that. But you’re painting a picture of a standard post-war suburb (i.e. “little boxes made of ticky tacky”) and I don’t think most of Newton is like that at all.
@Tricia, there are reasons to live in a place, other than its charm or character – this could include family, friends, employment, proximity to other locations, a decent airport, and probably a million other things.
@MMQC, there are obviously a few examples of outstanding civic architecture and historically-significant homes. They’re protected not going anywhere. But for example, if you were to walk 500 feet from any of the treasures that you’ve mentioned, then you’d end up on the Mass Turnpike extension. And on the other side of that, more chem-lawns and hastily-erected McMansions.
All of which is fine – people use the Pike, as ugly as it is, to drive to and from work and NYC, and people can live equally happy lives inside their McMansions, Victorians, Tudors, post-war Capes, or apartment blocks – that’s the way the city has developed to suit its inhabitants.
But my point is that in 2019 it’s disingenuous when people invoke a need to preserve this area’s unique “character” or “charm” in order to prevent development or increased population. In Newton the dog-whistle is usually “urbanization” while in Needham they (even more laughably) have in the last 20 years taken to using the term “Norman Rockwell.”