Emily Norton
City Councilor (Ward 2)
Newton, MA
Dear Councilor Norton:
A year-and-a-half ago, in the comments to this thread, you and I heatedly debated whether the climate crisis demands greater housing density. I suggested that aggressive housing growth in Newton was urgently necessary, on environmental grounds. You disagreed. I urge you to reconsider.
No one on the City Council or running to join the City Council has quite your environmental bona fides or your record of advocacy for climate-saving policies. Except on this one topic: housing. You continue to be one of the most prominent leaders in the development-skeptical community in Newton, which community has sufficient influence, for example, to reduce the Riverside proposal by 151 apartments. Newton needs you, the planet needs you, to join the forces supporting more housing in our community, not slowing it.
Last March, you were not alone among development-skeptical environmentalists. Notably at the time, the Sierra Club opposed California State Senator Scott Weiner’s pro-housing proposal — SB 827 — to ease zoning restrictions statewide. At the time, you were the Massachusetts Chapter Director of the Sierra Club. At the very least, you were consistent with a well-regarded national organization.
Whatever environmentalist opposition there has been to density, that opposition is now evaporating. The Sierra Club is now explicit about the need for greater density. It’s even an issue for the presidential race: Bernie Sanders draws the connection between density and reducing carbon emissions.
It is very simple argument. Cars are killing the planet. The more people who live closer to transit, the less driving there is. Newton has transit. The more people who live closer to where they work, the less driving there is. Newton is closer to Boston than are the communities experiencing suburban sprawl. Even if people have to drive, it’s a shorter trip from Newton to Boston. The more density, the richer array of amenities within walking distance, the the less driving there is. Newton has 13 village centers and other commercial districts ripe to be revitalized as true walkable destinations.
Newton doesn’t have to have perfect transit-oriented development tomorrow to contribute to saving the planet.
What would it look like for you to recognize the environmental case for density and become a champion? Generally, I would hope that you would state explicitly that we need significantly more housing in Newton. More specifically, I would hope that you would state unequivocally that Newton needs:
- To end single-family-only zoning in Newton, allowing duplexes, triplexes, and maybe fourplexes by right on any lot in the city.
- To allow small to medium (4-6 story) apartment buildings by right in village centers.
- To, yes, encourage intense residential in large developments.
These are not standalone policies. There are a whole host of related issues that would need to be addressed, too. Affordable housing. Gentrification and displacement. Traffic. The state of our transit. Developers.
Will simply building more alone achieve our affordable housing goals? Absolutely not. We’ll need to take other measures, but in addition, not instead. Will building more increase the risk of displacement? Maybe yes, maybe no. But, we’ll certainly need to be mindful of the risk and take the right steps to protect current residents appropriately.
Is our transit system robust enough to support full car-free living across the city? Of course not. But, we can’t wait for transit to support density or density to support transit. We need to proceed on both tracks aggressively. Would loosening our building restrictions create opportunities for developer wealth? Sure. But, we can impose conditions on large projects. And, by making more by-right development opportunities, we expand the diversity of developers who can build in our city, including smaller developers and not-for-profits. Ultimately, if additional housing is our objective — as it should be — we need to recognize that we are aligned with developers. We just need to be sure to manage the relationship carefully. Strange bedfellows and all that.
Will adding housing to Newton make Newton traffic worse? Sure. There’s a ton to discuss here, but the key is to think in terms of vehicle miles travelled (VMT). While a new family in Newton adds to the total miles driven in and to/from Newton, it will almost assuredly be less than that family would add to the region if their home is out among suburban sprawl.
Bottom line: there are two basic questions. 1. Do you agree that, if reducing carbon emissions is the goal, more housing in Newton is better than more housing farther out from Boston. 2. If the answer to 1 is yes, what issues are more important than reducing carbon emissions?
Answering 1. Yes and 2. None doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t also attend to the other issues. We can — and many of your colleagues on the City Council already do — think we need to add significant housing and that important issues need to be addressed to make any new housing work.
You might be wondering why this letter is to you alone and not to other development-skeptical councilors and candidates. First, I hoped to revisit our “discussion”* from last March in light of the direction that national discussion has been going. Second, whether you intended it or not, you have become the face of the development-skeptical in Newton. No other city-council incumbent, for instance, has earned a Right Size Newton endorsement. Third, as has been pointed out on these pages previously, your advocacy for environmental causes both in and out of Newton and your position on housing remains a jarring contrast to some of us. Fourth, you are in a hotly contested city council race.
Most of all, I recognize that you are a very skilled, passionate, and dogged advocate for the positions you take. Nothing would move the conversation forward more than your advocating for our obligation to add density to help alleviate the climate crisis.
Please join those of us advocating for more housing in Newton.
Thanks.
Sean Roche
* In preparing this post, I re-read the discussion. For my part, I wish I had improved the light-to-heat ratio.
Sean, instead of encouraging greater density of housing, why not encourage greater density within the existing housing, thereby preserving what is left of Newton’s green environment.
Each day Emily’s opponent drives past “transit-oriented developments” Washington Place and Austin St and the Newtonville Commuter Rail station to a downtown parking spot. Just sayin…
Here we go again. (Groan). I’m going to cut and paste my response from another previous thread every time this pops up. It is SO old. It’s all been debunked before, multiple times.
Pat, you mean Jacks comment? Has he been stalking Bryan’s driving habits for that long?
😉
I kid, I kid.
But seriously, there was a whole post a bit ago where Bryan answered dozens of questions from folks. No reason why we can’t ask Emily to do the same.
Let’s keep it respectful on both sides!
All this talk of solving the climate crisis through more density strikes me as pro-development agitprop disguised as virtue signaling. Newton does more than its fair share with the small lots. Go tell the people in Wellesley and Weston to increase their density.
@Fig
Those questions to Bryan (including from me) had to come from V14 commenters. The bloggers on this site have been consistently unfair in disproportionately challenging Emily over other City Councilors.
Richard Nixon had his ” plumbers”doing dirty political tricks. Looks like Bryan Barash has Sean Roche heading up his dirty tricks operation! Bryan can’t make the case himself Sean? It is Ridiculous to question Emily ‘s environmental credentials. I’m sorry , but being in favor of building more housing doesn’t qualify you as environmentalist. Bryan isn’t transforming himself into a champion of the environment because he took the commuter rail a few times after he launched his campaign. Emily has years and years of environmental activism. Sorry, you’re not winning this argument.
Emily is doing exactly what she was elected to do…representing and supporting her constituents’ concerns on density.
Sean, in the past you’ve commented via a Q&A format, so…
1. Do you currently live in a single or multi-family home?
2. Does you family have one or more cars? Or no cars?
In 1969 and my family and I moved to Newton from downtown Manhattan, because we were wonder-struck that such an incredibly beautiful, green, peaceful, friendly and even walkable community was affordable and even a convenient commute to where i had been offered a job in Back Bay, and even to downtown Boston, and we had come to hate the constant traffic, the noise, the commotion the foul air and filth of NYC! Now it seems there’s a bunch of you who think it would be great to live in Manhattan, but would rather just convert (develop) Newton to, basically, the same kind of thing! Well, I’m with Emily! Denser housing = more people = more cars = more congestion, more noise, more pollution, more of everything that makes Manhattan what it is and the absence of which makes Newton, by comparison, the relative paradise that it is and was in answer to our prayers, even when we were a whole lot younger back in 1969. Yeah, i know, you’re going to tell me to get the heck out of Newton, if i really don’t want to live in a Manhattan again!
Sean, why don’t you ask the mayor why she lives in a 6000 sq ft + ( I was corrected by a reader, she downsized from a 10000 sq ft ), house while encouraging everyone ELSE to give it up for affordable housing. The hypocrisy on v14 is monumental, stupendous, unrelentingly ridiculous.
Emily has environmental street creds you can’t even come close to, Sean. Do you have an electric car? Are you moving into Austin Street when it opens? Do you regularly walk around picking up trash off the ground? Really, I get the urgency, but are you walking the walk? Is Mr Barash driving to work every day? Talk Talk Talk is all you do.
This blog has turned into a propaganda forum for its operators. Or has it always been that way? The Barash camp must be feeling desperate.
Village 14 is the Fox News of Newton.
In 1969 and my family and I moved to Newton from downtown Manhattan, because we were wonder-struck that such an incredibly beautiful, green, peaceful, friendly and even walkable community was affordable and even a convenient commute to where i had been offered a job in Back Bay, and even to downtown Boston, and we had come to hate the constant traffic, the noise, the commotion the foul air and filth of NYC! Now it seems there’s a bunch of you who think it would be great to live in Manhattan, but would rather just convert (develop) Newton to, basically, the same kind of thing! Well, I’m with Emily! Denser housing = more people – more cars = more congestion, more noise, more pollution, more of everything that makes Manhattan what it is and the absence of which makes Newton, by comparison, the relative paradise that it is and was in answer to our prayers, even when we were a whole lot younger back in 1969. Yeah, i know, you’re going to tell me to get the heck out of Newton, if i really don’t want to live in a Manhattan again!
@Alex yep you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone…sold to a developer for some magic beans.
@Rick Frank. Exactly!
Everyone in our city should read “The Little House” by Newton’s own Virginia Lee Burton.
I don’t understand how this is an anti-Norton post. If you admire her environmental record and opposition to transit oriented housing, it’s entirely favorable to her.
As I posted on the thread re the international youth demonstrations for environmental justice and BU’s study of same , I don’t think building More housing ( big or small ), as Mr Roche and vaunted’ political leaders’ are calling for, or as Deb Crossley is asking for, “raising the bar for building energy efficiency for private development “, will do anything for the environment.
By all means encourage or mandate the insulation / conservation of our existing building fabric.
But new construction large or small is very costly environmentally. It takes an inordinate amount of fossil fuel to build new, and locally we have done very little to preserve the environment we have already built. We allow teardowns willy-nilly via way too permissive zoning regulation, and by the same rules encouraging McMansionization.
I agree the first step is sustainability !
We should sustain (and make improvements on ), what existing housing investment we have already committed to and not foolishly
push for more environmentally costly /damaging construction!
Rick Frank,
V-14 = The Fox News in Newton !
Got a real laugh as it seems so true.
The mayor, the city council, the city planning department, V14,.. hard to tell where the message has originated.
Rich Frank has it correct. The problem in Newton and other towns is the large houses with large lots with few people living there. The current Newton Mayor is simply one among many.
In a recent letter to the Boston Globe (9/18) two Newton residents castigated those who oppose high density development in their own neighborhood. Both letter writers expressed strong support for large scale development, all of which by the way are no where near where they live. The impact of these developments on their daily lives will be negligible.
This got me to do a little research of public records on the living spaces of the letter writers and those of three (3) prominent Newton developers: Robert Korff, Scott Oran and Robert Engler. These gentlemen are very much in the forefront of those proposing to densify areas of Newton where they don’t live.
The four (4) homes that this quartet occupy in Newton are on 116,669 sq ft of valuable Newton real estate. Yet these large properties are the home to only ten (10) people according to the latest data available from the city census. That is, each person in these homes occupies 11,667 sq ft of property.
How in any rational world can anyone say that the housing problem in Newton is caused by NIMBY people in already densely developed areas and not by the few folks who occupy large plots of land in other parts of the Garden City? If Mr Korff’s, Mr Oran’s, Mr Engler’s and the letter writers’ properties had the same density that my neighborhood does, there would be over 79 people living on their collective land and not just 10. This is the real cause of the housing problem in Newton and elsewhere.
Bob, this dovetails with what I suggested in this thread’s very first comment: “instead of encouraging greater density of housing, why not encourage greater density within the existing housing, thereby preserving what is left of Newton’s green environment.”
(BTW, what’s with all this V14 = Fox News of Newton? Why not CNN or MSNBC, essentially outlets of the opposing party?)
While I often disagree with certain V14 posters, I disagree with comparing it to Fox News for one simple reason – V14 has never claimed to be news media. Blogs reflect the opinions of their posters, pretty much by definition.
It highlights the sad state of local news media in general that many people now depend on this blog to learn about Newton issues. But let’s remember that when V14 first started, the Tab was actually a useful news source and the blog made no claims to being a substitute. Rather, it was formed as a forum for discussion of issues. Opinions, not investigative reporting.
@Meredith – just trying to lighten things up. After all, it’s been called a “cesspool” as well. ;>)
@Bob Kavanagh it may not be the root cause of the lack of affordable housing in Newton, but those looking to criticize Emily’s environmental record are misguided at best.
I take San Francisco as an example. The high tech company salaries have made the area unaffordable. Similar effects are happening here, with Boston attracting companies and developers building new offices, and the suburbs become the “cause” of a housing shortage?
@Sean, I appreciate the time you take to advocate your positions but can you take a break? Regular readers have seen and debated your housing positions on too many occasions to count. Repackaging the same ideas in different ways doesn’t make them new. V14 has developed a diverse set of commenters, but it would be less tiresome if it had a greater diversity of editors posting stories.
Actually to combat climate change instead of development we should plant trees: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/world/trillion-trees-climate-change-intl-scn/index.html
We also need to improve our public transit, sidewalks, and bikability to combat climate change. IMO, we can densify Newton (which we should), but who is going to give up their cars if the T is unreliable, the commuter rail is literally only for 9-5ish workers working in Boston, the sidewalks are in poor shape, and our roads are not bike-friendly? Density isn’t going to fix our infrastructure issues. We need to have a plan in place for all of that, otherwise people moving into the new apartment buildings are going to need to continue to rely on cars.
Sarah,
I’m unlikely to stop posting about housing (at least not until we’ve gotten rid of exclusionary zoning), but I won’t be insulted if you skip my posts. Sorry you find them tiresome.
I would be happy to add to the topics I post about (if I can find the time). What are three topics you’d like to read more about? I’ll do my best to hit one or two in the coming days or weeks.
Councilor Norton has done a good job recently working with other Councilors and representatives to raise awareness and promote improved Commuter Rail on Washington St., notably sponsoring the Transit Matters presentation at the library. This is an important issue for Newton that needs to be addressed. Thank you. This should be an “all hands on deck” issue for our leaders and officials, with no downsides.
I am interested in hearing what her vision for development on Washington Street would be given current conditions, after an MBTA “Phase 1” rail improvement project, and after a future possible “Phase 2” buildout with improved bi-directional rail service to Newton. Do those potential improvements affect her vision? Even without the CR, Washington St has reasonable express buses to Boston, which are unused by the light industrial and automotive uses that are still common on parts of the corridor. Is conversion to residential or mixed use appropriate? What else should the city or state do?
These questions aren’t really specific to Councilor Norton, and should be asked of other candidates as well. But I know she’s familiar with the Commuter Rail/transit issue.
Amazing that it took nearly 30 comments for someone (Mike Halle) to directly address the points in Sean’s post, which I will point out was pretty darn respectfully presented (even included an apology from Sean to Councilor Norton).
It would be great if we could get this thread back on topic.
Even better if Councilor Norton was available to respond.
The fatal flaw in Sean’s argument is that it is OK tor ruin Newton by building high-density housing because people who live in Wellesley (fill in your favorite suburb) and work in Boston will move to Newton. Most Newtonians that I know work in Boston. Most of them moved to Newton from BOSTON. So, if we build more housing more people who work in Boston will move to Newton. This will contribute to global warming.
Why do so many people from Boston move to Newton? Many want to start a family. They want green space and low crime, things that are hard to find in high-density areas. They want to live in a neighborhood where you know your neighbors, which is hard to do a high density area or in areas with a high proportion of rentals.
@Greg
The presumption that Emily would continue posting on this blog after how she’s been singled out compared to other City Councilor is preposterous.
Why is redeveloping Washington Street’s underused commercial properties into housing and hopefully-useful commercial and retail inherently “ruining Newton”?
“They want green space and low crime, things that are hard to find in high-density areas. …They want to live in a neighborhood where you know your neighbors, which is hard to do a high density area….”
What green space would Washington St development be eliminating? (I note that the current Washington Street vision draft has an entire section called “Expand Access to Open Green Spaces and Recreation”, including subsections on new trees. What’s the current plan?)
Density and crime: The Towers at Chestnut Hill is high density. Pretty sure the crime rate’s low, and that people know their neighbors. (Washington Street vision draft includes, for example, a section called, “Allow communal living models” that looks to explicitly support co-ops and multi-generational living spaces. What’s the current plan?)
Wants aside, I wouldn’t overestimate how well the average person in Newton knows their neighbors.
I also could imagine that new arrivals to Newton appreciate the convenience of its unique village model of distributed main streets. But that also favors the walkable businesses and shops that are part of mixed use development. Walkable and bikable neighborhoods are pretty high up on many people’s desire lists, but Newton has been failed so far to live up to its potential (see again Washington Street).
Enough, Mike, with the nonsense of the unwalkability of Newtonville. My wife and I, 40 year residents of Court Street, just walked to Newtonville to get groceries at Star and our flu shop at CVS. If I had wanted coffee, I could have stopped at either DD or Starbucks on the way home. We both walk to get our hair cut. The PO is eminently walkable as are Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s. Oh, did I mention there is a liquor store (Marty’s) and a pot shop we can walk to if we so desire. Our 3 children walked to all 3 Newton schools they attended. I walk to church on Sunday. You are just wrong. This area is very walkable. What are we missing? BTW, the 28 Austin St website says that we are a ‘uniquely glamorous neighborhood’. To top it all off, the website even touts the neighborhood’s walkability score of 79. What am I missing about the neighborhood that makes it so unwalkable?
https://www.walkscore.com/score/28-Austin-Street-Newton-MA-02460/lat=42.3501/lng=-71.2082/?utm_source=rentcafe.com&utm_medium=ws_api&utm_campaign=ws_api
Bob, Newtonville isn’t all of Washington Street. As I said, the village models offer great potential and, in many cases, good walkability. But they don’t live up to their potential.
No crosswalks between Chestnut and Lowell Streets, or at locations like Cabot’s.
Inbound bus stops like the one at Eddy St with no crosswalk or no sidewalk on the pike side.
A 7.5′ shared sidewalk for bikes and pedestrians. Poor pedestrian lighting at night.
Wide side streets with complaints about high speeds.
And yet, yes people walk.
And if we have an area that has walkability, and we can make it even better, is the best use to maintain light industrial and automotive commercial property zoning?
And it isn’t like Washington St is some enjoyable driving experience either….
Mike, you ask, ‘…is the best use to maintain light industrial and automotive commercial property zoning?’ Actually, it might be. On occasion, I need gas for my car and repairs made to it. If more people are going to live in Newton as you seem to believe is the right way to go, they are going to need these types of services.
There would appear to be no reason for large scale development between Lowell and Chestnut if all that is lacking are crosswalks. Surely, the Ward Councilors in your Ward 3 could get the Traffic Dept to install a crosswalk/traffic light at all inbound bus stops. BTW, except to get to a parked car or bus stop, why does someone need to cross Washington between Lowell and the Sullivan Tire Store?
Mike you know the MBTA doesn’t even have the money to do phase one of their commuter rail plan? Second, phase one is supposed to take 4-5 years and NOT improve service, just make the stations handicap accessible. Improved commuter rail service is 8-10 years away.
So let’s add hundreds of housing units on Washington Street with no improvement in public transportation. Seems obvious that that will result in increased traffic which is bad for the environment by the way!
And as Jeff pointed out, no one is giving up their five bedroom home in Wellesley to move to a two bedroom condo on Washington Street.
You want to support housing and help the environment? Build more housing in Boston! That’s where the jobs are!!
Arthur, Washington Street Vision is a 30 to 40 year plan. Planning for the opportunities enabled by improved commuter rail easily fits its timeline and yours.
The Towers in Chestnut Hill are condos.
Every recent development – completed or proposed – are luxury apartments.
Why do you think that is?
Only the developers benefit long term in this scenario. So let’s stop proclaiming some sort of idealogical victory by adding a brick ton of apartments that only the well to do can afford.
Sean — Maybe you are Bryan Barash’s stalking horse or maybe you’re just too young to remember that golden oldie from Carole King (lyrics below).
Your misguided penchant for building, building, building, densification and destroying the very qualities that make Newton the “Garden City” — and implicitly claiming a kind of moral nobility for doing so — is mind boggling.
Hum along with Carole King…
———
“Lyrics to They Paved Paradise / Counting Crows
They paved paradise and put up a parkin’ lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swingin’ hot spot
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got till it’s gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got till it’s gone
They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot
Hey farmer, farmer, put away your DDT
I don’t care about spots on my apples,
LEAVE me the birds and the bees please
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got till it’s gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
Hey now, they paved paradise to put up a parking lot
Why not?
Listen, late last night, heard the screen door slam
And a big yellow taxi took my girl away
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got till it’s gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
Well, don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got till it’s gone
They paved paradise to put up a parking lot
Well now, they paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
I don’t wanna give it
Why you wanna give it
Why you wanna givin it all away
Hey, hey, hey
Now you wanna give it
I should wanna give it
Now you wanna givin it all away
Hey, paved paradise, put up a parking lot
Paved paradise, and put up a parking lot”
Abe Zoe:
LOL: it is Joni Mitchell my friend. And while the counting crows did a great version of it, I really prefer the original. Google Big Yellow Taxi.
I’m also laughing because every time I’ve attended a park and rec meeting someone has sung that song in their comments. Every time.
First time I’ve seen someone define gas stations and a funeral home as paradise though.
To each his or her own. But for me, a more walkable Washington street and street level commercial is pretty darn nice.
And check out Joni Mitchell she is awesome.
Thanks Mike. I feel much better knowing Korf is waiting 30-40 years to build his remaining projects!! Maybe everyone else wouldn’t be worrying either!
Matt said: “Every recent development – completed or proposed – are luxury apartments. Why do you think that is?” I tried to spell may guess to that question out in another thread. Rental units allow pricing to be adjusted more dynamically to the market than selling condos.
“Only the developers benefit long term in this scenario.” People rent these apartments voluntarily; they aren’t being forced. It would seem they believe they benefit (your opinion that they are wasting their money notwithstanding, seems like their choice). And we are gaining more affordable housing units than we otherwise seem to be able pull together on our own.
“…adding a brick ton of apartments that only the well to do can afford.” It’s not a secret that there are well-to-do people in Newton, including a sizable number that are a whole lot more well-to-do than the people who will rent these apartments. Even the market rate units, while not as affordable as I would like, would offer young professionals and some older people who don’t need a big property a place to live in a nice community at a location where they might not need a car for every trip. Perfect? No. But what progress are we making toward perfect?
And I’ve really got nothing against people like that living in Newton, spending money at Newton businesses, and becoming part of the community. I spent more than ten years renting in Cambridge after college, and I tried to do my share giving back. I’ve known countless renters in the Boston area who have done the same. The idea that people who rent don’t become part of a community is an unfair stereotype.
Bob Kavanagh suggests that automobile oriented businesses on Washington Street might be the best use for the properties. Bob, I offer you might be right. The number of people who need windshield replacements might just be enough to keep two of those businesses in the same block booming. And if they are booming, they’ll stay.
But that doesn’t mean we need to leave our decades old zoning in place, artificially distorting the market in such a way that only allows for such low-density, minimally-taxed auto-centric uses. No one intentionally carved out a car repair nexus in West Newton, nor would they today if we were starting from scratch. We just unintentionally let it happen.
So let’s see them compete. Let’s see what alternative uses are possible and viable. Customers can vote with their wallets, voters with their ballots. I’m personally still dreaming of a City Target in Washington Street, the logical great-grandchild of the Woolworth’s stores that anchored many a main street in the past. One that’s LEED certified and does local delivery.
https://corporate.target.com/corporate-responsibility/planet/sustainable-operations
And for Abe Zoe, I wore out some Joni Mitchell vinyl in my day. The irony of your comment is that the three big projects under consideration in Newton right now all have mighty big parking lots, and none of them are currently anywhere near paradise. No bees, few trees.
And that’s kind of the problem. We’re so divided, so distrustful, so scared, and so unconfident that we can’t make decisions, and we end up leaving in place stuff that’s clearly broken. It’s as if we believe that literally any decision we make is worse than doing nothing at all. And that’s where a positive vision from someone like Councilor Norton, or any other Councilor or candidate, can help.
(It’s also ironic that besides upzoning, Sean is quite outspoken in his desire to depave, specifically to narrow roads and intersections. Just ask him. 🙂 )
Abe,
The threat to the environment is suburban sprawl, not urban density.
Please read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/crisis-birds-north-america.html.
Urban density is the solution.
FigNewtonville- Thanks. I stand corrected on Joni vs Carole!
Mike- Yes, our current Washington Street is not paradise. But the idea of replacing the current situation with a raft of 6 story buildings is just stunningly out of character with Newton’s ethos.
Sean – Overdeveloping Newton is not a solution. It’s a mistake.
Sean, suburbia has already sprawled. So let’s not destroy Newton.
“Mike Halle”
“at locations like Cabot’s”
– there’s a need for “something” there, I don’t know if you can put in a cross walk, technically, for the problem is that Cabot’s is popular and people park across the street along the mass pike. There’s no sidewalk along the pike side to create a cross walk there.
@Peter Kay
I guess we will pick up Newtonville and move it out to the country, like the little house?