Note: This is not a campaign pitch! It’s about her full-time job.
Emily Norton and Vernon Walker have an excellent article in Commonwealth Magazine about how communities can build climate change resiliency into their local geographies. It’s worth a look. One quote:
Many of the most effective and inexpensive solutions to building climate resilience involve bringing nature back into our built environment. Such nature-based solutions include restoring urban tree canopy, restoring wetlands, daylighting buried streams, and installing “green infrastructure,” such as bioswales, rain gardens, and permeable pavers that absorb water, thereby reducing stormwater runoff and flooding and recharging aquifers. Not only do these solutions offer protection, they offer co-benefits of cleaner air, cleaner water, and the psychological benefit we all get from living in and around green space.
There is a growing concern in the financial community that municipal bonds that are issued can be of higher risk than generally assumed if key portions of a city’s or town’s infrastructure, revenue base, and the like might be subject to disruption by weather events and flooding. Norton and Walker offer a set of sensible solutions to these problems. As they note:
Even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, here in the Northeast we will continue to face more intense storms, more frequent drought, and more extreme heat. And virtually no one is doing enough to protect people, property, and the natural world from these weather extremes. Just as climate activists are rising up to demand that governments move more quickly to transition off the fossil fuels that are warming our planet, so too should concerned citizens pressure local governments to act more quickly to invest in smart “climate resilience.”
Thank you for posting, Paul!
I believe there are individuals like me who are 100% (in my case 110%) actively in favor of “bringing nature back into our built environment… including restoring urban tree canopy, restoring wetlands, day lighting buried streams, and installing green infrastructure” throughout Newton and beyond, yet remain unconvinced that carbon dioxide be deemed a pollutant.’ These measures are central to environmental preservation and enhancement, irrespective of the question of climate change.
Right, @Jim, it’s a winning strategy in any event.
@Jim: that is a wonderful example of how we can move forward from shared values, in this case the value of bringing nature back, without having to agree on every other aspect of that debate.
It is a terrific article, thanks for posting Paul.
And thanks for your leadership on this Councilor Norton.
And Councilor Norton, while you’re participating on this thread, can you please explain your position on how transit oriented, multi-family housing fits into the toolbox municipalities should or shouldn’t also employ to benefit climate resiliency?
Thanks in advance for making the time to answer my question.
A recent study suggested that planting a trillion trees could save the planet from climate change. My question to the “environmentalists “on V14 is what are you doing to promote this idea—-planting massive amounts of trees around Newton instead of promoting massive development.
What’s better for the environment-building 14 -18 story buildings at Riverside or creating a new forest there? The clear answer, if people are serious about global warming, is to start turning as much as we canof our asphalt jungle into new green spaces filled with trees.
Riverside would be great new park/forest!
Same for the Northland site which is not a transit oriented development in the least.
Let’s try to maximize development where it provides the most environmental benefits which means increasing density in downtown Boston. One building in Boston could provide all the housing proposed for Riverside and Northland and people could actually walk directly to work instead of driving or relying on public transit.
Build forests in Newton not buildings! That’s building climate resilience!!
I can tell you what I’ve done. I did volunteer software engineering for greenstand.org.
And I blogged about it on my company website
https://www.dominionsw.com/?p=292
@Greg – I’ll jump in on that one. Redeveloping commercial property is a huge opportunity to open up additional green space and reduce our non-permeable surface area.
Literally every suggestion here would be strongly helped by redevelopment, if not required for it.
Here are the areas mentioned: ‘restoring urban tree canopy, restoring wetlands, daylighting buried streams, and installing “green infrastructure”’.
All of these are opportunities presented by development. “Daylighting streams” is part of the project at The Barn site. “Restoring urban tree canopy” is part of every major redevelopment, and “Hello Washington Street”, and should be happening along our major roads as well. We are “installing green infrastructure” at every new development.
So I have to say, the incumbent is calling for things that are happening over her objection. If you want someone who’s going to do what it takes to meet the challenges presented by climate change, not sometimes, but all the time, I’m asking for your vote on November 5th.
I was hoping, I guess naively, that this post and comments would be about the ideas presented and not meld into a campaign presentation. Oh well, back to the substance of the comment:
Not disagreeing on the potential to have developers help fund such things, but it seems to me that the article suggests that municipalities should invest in these ideas even outside of new developments, i.e., as a continuing and sustained part of their capital and physical planning. An analogy would be that many cities and towns over the years have invested in repairing leaky water mains and reducing infiltration and inflow into sewer pipes as part of sound water and wastewater programs. Those efforts were not tied to new development, but were instead built into the municipalities’ capital and operating programs–and the costs have been added to people’s water and sewer bills as part of prudent operation of these network services.
Excellent point Paul. The idea that the answer to climate resilience is more development seems to miss the point of the article… the whole reason we NEED to bring nature back into our built environment is because it’s… A BUILT ENVIRONMENT. So yes it’s important to replicate nature as much as possible around our buildings, roads and sidewalks, but it also means sometimes we need to NOT build, which is the beauty and brilliance of the Natural Valley Storage Area… the Army Corps had the foresight to say this area will NOT be developed, instead we will use it as a natural sponge for flood waters. In Boston CRWA has been advocating for Widett Circle and Frontage Road to be returned to nature in the form of a daylighted stream and rebuilt wetlands — historical photos of a century ago show that area, which now houses a DPW building and a tow lot – used to be open water. Mayor Walsh wanted to redevelop it as a stadium. But a smarter investment for public health and safety would be to let it return to a natural state and absorb floodwaters, as the area already floods frequently and will do so more in coming years. For an example closer to home, Cheesecake Brook next to Albemarle Park already floods frequently, which is one of the many reasons I oppose putting a 3 story NewCal there. That is a perfect example of where the answer is NOT more development but rather leave Albemarle as a floodable field, and daylight Cheesecake Brook so that it can more effectively hold floodwaters. As the brook is a tributary to the Charles River, this would also have a beneficial impact on the water quality of the Charles River.
Someone still has to explain to me why Boston is building so much Office space in a flood zone, and we suburbs are supposed to supply the housing.
Supply and demand? Let’s look at the demand side for a change…
@Rick you are absolutely right. Look at the Seaport then look at sea level rise predictions…. #DoesNotCompute
Just want to give a citation for one of the points I raise above, an article on the idea that financial markets will be keeping an eye on how municipalities choose to address these issues (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04082019/climate-change-ratings-agencies-financial-risk-cities-companies):
“One of the main agencies that rates the creditworthiness of big borrowers, including cities and corporations, has brought on board a data firm specializing in climate risks. It’s a signal that rating agencies are paying more attention to global warming and its impact in the financial markets.
“Credit ratings, much like individual credit scores, assess how likely it is that a borrower will repay debt. Those ratings can affect how much governments and companies are able to borrow and how much it will cost them. Just the threat of a lower credit rating can pressure cities and companies to be more proactive in taking steps to mitigate risks, and now those risks are starting to include climate change.
“‘More and more, issuers and investors want to know how they are exposed to climate events,’ said Michael Mulvagh, head of communications in the Americas, Europe, Africa and the Middle East for Moody’s Corporation, which owns one of the largest U.S. ratings agencies.
“He said Moody’s decision to purchase a major stake in Four Twenty Seven, a company that analyzes the risks to corporations and governments from climate extremes such as sea level rise, heat stress and storms, ‘will help us go deeper into and refine how we assess physical risks caused by environmental factors.'”
@Paul – I agree with you completely, we absolutely should invest in these types of opportunities on public land where we can. One area where I think the City really needs to step up is our urban tree canopy – too often street trees are removed and not replaced, nevermind creating new tree canopy.
But given that so much of our land is privately held and already developed, it is hard to have this conversation without considering both sides of the coin.
Paul, LOL. If you didn’t want a campaign discussion, perhaps posting an article by one of the candidates wasn’t the way to go. What did you expect in the middle of an election?
Post it again in a month. It is a good discussion to have once election season is over. Or don’t complain when it goes into political back and forth immediately….
Emily and Vernon make good points in their article. Not every place should have a building on it. Paul brings up that, “municipalities should invest in these ideas even outside of new developments”. Of course we should plan for that and we are. Mimicking nature is at the core of all sustainability improvements. Both zoning reform and the Washington Street Vision Plan offer huge opportunities for “greening” the built environment, including more trees and greenery, more permeable surfaces, stormwater improvements, day-lighting brooks and streams, improving wildlife habitat and reducing the heat island effect.
These opportunities also exist with re-development. And appropriate density in one area can also mean there is less sprawl that eats up existing greenspace in another and less pressure to build in areas that would not be appropriate like Widett Circle. This area was once a natural wetland before being paved over offers a golden opportunity to build climate resiliency, restore public open space and restore the natural hydrology of the area.
Thanks for posting, Paul!
All too often, the proposed solution for climate is to build our way out. Very counter intuitive. Creating climate resistance makes much more sense.
Thanks Paul. I hope this thread stays just about climate change but it’s unfortunate that it’s posted during election season.
After reading the great article, my first thought was Cheesecake Brook and what it’s been allowed to become – and how much worse it could get if Albemarle Park is built out.
I have always thought building in the Boston Seaport was a bad idea. At first it was hard to get there and it epitomized the problems Boston is already experiencing – Segregation (read it was almost all built by white developers), Wealth Inequality (read it was just a haven for the rich) among other problems. Boston has tried to change that description and has done just about the smallest amount necessary.
But the main problem that Boston has all but ignored is climate change – Boston is built on “stilts” of a sort over water and Boston Harbor is right on the edge and will be one of the first areas to “sink back into the ocean.” https://youtu.be/9pRvn7J9ZPQ
If you check out the 1892 Newton Map of Areas Requiring Drainage on the city website, you can see that where there was once wetlands and ponds, there are now houses, schools, golf courses and parks. If you look closer, you might notice that the Riverside and Northland sites are not among the areas requiring drainage.
If we should bring greenspace and tree canopies back to urban/suburban communities, and I think we should, we should probably start where there were trees, wetlands and drainage areas in the past.
Here’s a little game you can play. Try to find where your house is now on the 1892 map. You might be surprised to find it sits on what used to be wetlands.
Ted, you just ruined my morning plans. I am what I think would be called a map nerd – or just a nerd – I’m not sure if there are different categories.
Thanks for the map. Everyone else, thanks for the links – I learn something new everyday.
A few years back, someone showed me a Newton map from the 1800s overlaid with today’s newton schools. Quite a few of our schools were also built on the earlier wetlands, including my daughters elementary (Countryside) and I believe her middle school (Brown) and high school (Newton South)
Ted,
Thanks for the map link. I like looking at maps too-new and old. Very interesting and a good historical perspective.
I’m not sure we’re reading the old map the same since in my opinion the old 1892 Riverside Station is not located where the current Riverside Station is. In my opinion the current Riverside sits approximately at “Runaway Brook” on the 1892 map-just west of Grove Street and the area is colored blue so it does look like a drainage area.
Either way, it appears that the current Riverside Station backs up to property along the Charles River and while we don’t have the land space they have in the Natural Valley Storage Area, I think creating as much green space as we can along our rivers can only help the Charles River continue to recover from its polluted past.
Here’s a link to a study that I believe supports that proposition.
http://www.urbanwaterslearningnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Urban-River-Parkways_Tool-for-Public-Health-1.pdf
I have to say as well, looking at Needham Street on the 1892 map, there’s a lot of blue in that area as well as a small pond. So Northland looks like another another water area to me.
Thanks again for the map link.
Arthur Jackson – The Northland property on that map looks pretty dry except for one little bit right by the corner of Oak and Needham St. It looks like all the blue area is off that property, on the far side of South Meadow Brook
There should be more shade along the cheesecake brook to help aquatic life. The sun blazes down on it heating it beyond what would be “normal” if it had a wild nature Setting like it does further upstream across route 16. It’s also already brick channeled, which makes it run deeper and faster than its natural state. It would flood even higher without that, but unfortunately the speed of the channeled current “scours” the bottom, washing out naturally occurring water insect eggs etc. such is man’s impact.
The drainage map is fascinating. I remember when the Chestnut Hill mall was built on what we used to call Froggie’s pond. The Thompsonville neighborhood kids spent many summer days skipping stones with the frogs. We felt somewhat betrayed when our magical wetland was replaced by a luxury mall.
@Blue we humans are indeed the problem and the earth might be better off with fewer of us.
Kudos to both Emily Norton and Vernon Walker. This article has hit a responsive chord with me and I’m certain with many others in Newton, as well. It contains some thoughts that have been floating at the back of my own mind for a very long time as I’ve seen the radical development changes that have taken place in Newton over the years., some good, some not so good.
I grew up in Newton during the late 1940s when many of these sadly vanished wetlands were still around. The most prominent was a large body of water in Waban called the Frog Pond that was located where Stanley Road is now located. I recall several others in this area and throughout Newton. Almost none remain. A lot of our childhood activities took place around the Frog Pond. The Frog Pond helped foster our early interest in nature and the environment and it set a spark for my own career path and the career choices of others who saw their first tadpoles, dragon flies and turtles along the banks of this now forgotten natural gem.
The exciting potential of what Emily and Vernon have put forward is that it offers a way to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and actually enhance the traditional “physical “character and characteristics of our 13 villages. This is quite a different and quite a radical departure from so many other strategies that offer only an “either or” choice.
I’m curious as to the funding proposed for this proposal. For the most part, this is already developed land or at least land owned by someone other than the Commonwealth. We are proposing spending our entire CPA budget on Webster Woods. Fine and good. That’s 16 acres.
I don’t disagree that weather and flooding will be much worse for future generations.
But we should also be honest about what this will require. We love to live near lakes, rivers and streams. We love to live near the ocean. The built environment exists.
I think there should be appropriate risk hazards if you choose to live or build in a flood zone. But even that is hugely controversial.
So what’s the next step? And is this the best way to spend our global warming/future protection dollars?
@Fignewtonville The Webster Woods won’t take the entire CPA budget. It will only be using funds set aside for acquiring open space. CPA funds designated for recreation and historical preservation projects and affordable housing will not be impacted by Webster Woods. It was my understanding that if they bonded most of the cost, there would even still be funds for acquiring additional open space.
As for building more resiliency, I think this is important. Bioswales, trees to reduce heat islands, daylighting streams. Add to it local food sources and local energy.
Local food sources- I just bought 2 oranges from South Africa at Whole Foods.
I thought, this is crazy as I put them in my cart….should I have not purchased them? Probably.