By Linda Scott
Watertown Resident
Part One: Preserving Our Neighborhoods
“Preserving neighborhood character involves balancing tradition with growth through strategies
like historic designation, context-sensitive zoning (scale and setbacks), protecting green spaces, community engagement, and rehabilitation of existing buildings, all while fostering a sense of place, often focusing on a neighborhood’s unique look, feel, and activities, rather than just enforcing uniformity, to maintain stability and appeal.”
The above AI definition of preserving neighborhood character is a far cry from the standard, knee-jerk response to the phrase “preserving a neighborhood’s character” as a racist construct. (See also this AI definition: The phrase “preserving neighborhood character” has a complex history rooted in racially exclusionary policies [often referred to as redlining] that were used to maintain segregation in housing in the United States. While seemingly neutral today, the language was historically used as a coded way to prevent people of color from moving into predominantly white areas”).
Can it be used for these purposes? Sure. That’s why it is so important that we be vigilant and mindful of our final goals and plans.
The State of Play:
Ironically, these new plans for behemoth buildings with ridiculously meager parking availability and with no immediate and corresponding real time plans for transit improvement to lessen the impact of these restrictions, are being proposed and approved all over the City. (For the latest building approval at 33 Mt. Auburn St. (40 units, 20 parking spaces) and the very interesting public comments that ensued, see the story below:
Here’s another pending development just next door on Mt. Auburn Street (45-59), which is planned for 153 units and 94 parking spaces:
https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=133612&repo=r-5ece5628
See Willow Park, with its parking ratio of 0.8 (a former CPC member fought hard to get this up from a 0.5 ratio). In other words, at a 0.8 ratio, when this project is built, there’ll be just 111 parking spaces for 138 units. This effectively will put a “You’re not Welcome” sign up for the working poor, many of whom currently call this site home. Many will find it difficult to return if they don’t have a parking space once this construction project is completed. As an added stressor, this affects an already tight neighborhood parking situation.
With the necessity of holding down multiple jobs in multiple locations, a car is essential for these folks, not a luxury. As with many of these plans that are fundamentally well intentioned, I believe that it will prove to further gentrify our community rather than foster and welcome diversity of incomes.
And as our commercial resources dwindle (new commercial spaces left empty for long periods of time, possibly due to higher rents in new buildings), the need to rely on Amazon and FedEx trucks or cars becomes more necessary. (Are we the only community in the Boston area that needs to leave the City to post an important letter at the U.S. Post Office on a Saturday?).
Are we losing the Watertown Stop and Shop? I’ve heard unconfirmed rumors that something is being proposed on that lot on Watertown Street. If that is the case, where would that leave our community? Are we destined to become a quasi food desert as well … plenty of housing and bio labs, but with few sustaining (and walkable and bike-able) community resources?
On that note, are you aware that the property at 485 Arsenal Street (Atrius Health) is up for sale? We would almost certainly be losing a major Watertown health care facility if it weren’t for a very strong and long lease they hold on that property. (It was tried before and failed). As we move forward in this new year, I hope that we all make a commitment to vigilant and watchful participation in the Watertown development process. No, it certainly isn’t easy standing in front of the mindless (but very profitable) steamroller that’s been steadily on the roll over our City.
What’s at stake:
A friend of mine who immigrated here in the past 10 years from a country that has more than embraced density, explained his perspective on this:
“As density increases in a neighborhood, people start competing for limited resources. (Note…could one of those resources be parking?)
When that happens, the environment in the neighborhood changes … it gets more and more unpleasant and often less friendly.
The more unpleasant it gets, the more people are not willing to commit to living in the neighborhood for a long time.
Then the neighborhood is occupied almost entirely by people who are willing to put up with the unpleasantness for a short time. They live there, but don’t get involved. It’s a downward spiral from there.”
Tomorrow:
Part Two: Do You Know Where Your Neighborhood is Going? Looking at Trends
Understand, Linda, that this is not the Watertown of our present or past, but the Watertown of our future—and the future is always better. Always, Linda. Always. Increased density without adequate private transportation is not a fault but a goal. This was no secret, but overtly stated policy. Sure, the No. 71 bus will still be late and unreliable, but it will be emission-freely late and unreliable. Where do you need to go anyway, and why not by bicycle, as we were urged by another correspondent? Don’t you hear the call of the empty bike lanes, beckoning us to explore the wide open spaces of Arsenal Street? Who could suppress a laugh at the poor schmucks stuck in traffic, while you sail by in the brisk (15F, -4 wind chill), exhaust-perfumed air, running lights and weaving between cars like Lindsey Vonn on the alpine slopes?
I have asked before how we are supposed to balance so many crises at one time: climate, housing, etc., especially when they seem to conflict. Shut up, they explain (hat tip Ring Lardner). What part of crisis don’t I get? And didn’t NYC Mayor Mamdani’s “tenant advocate” explain that home ownership and private property are passé concepts, like leg warmers and tie-dye? Can’t you feel the warmth of the collective from here?
I am surprised at some of the comments here and conversations I’ve had that so many people didn’t know any of this was coming. Revolutionary change is what happens at community meetings while we put our kids to bed. The future belongs to those who show up. If we didn’t, and others did, it their future, not ours.
Do you live in reality? Your comments about densifying Watertown are frightening. You want to destroy the character of the town. The future you describe is NOT better.
And you may want to ride your bicycle in the rain, snow, sleet, freezing and summer hot weather. You may have the extra time to bike to all your destinations but the rest of us (most of us) don’t and/or can’t.
Hi Jilda,
I have seen your previous comments, and you make total sense to me. I think that if you haven’t seen Josh’s writing before, you might take his comments here literally. Anyway, I took his comments to mean that he’s calling out the pure insanity and impracticality of some of these ideas, at least at this time in Watertown’s history.
As far as “Watertown present” is concerned, he is definitely correct: The future belongs to those who show up. Sometimes ideas, even impractical and pie-in-the-sky ones, are voted upon favorably to appease those who show up, who compliment and schmooze with the decision-makers and those who have the loudest (not necessarily the most) voices. First steps…let your Watertown friends and neighbors know what’s happening here behind closed doors (see part 2). As Josh said, people are busy, they’ve got caregiving responsibilities and/or health and financial worries of their own. This might be the last thing on their radar…be part of that communication link if you aren’t already.
Thanks for the clarification. My heart stops every time I read or hear about the insanity that is planned for Watertown