(UPDATED April 20, 2026, 9:20 a.m.: The authors corrected the percent of renters and homeowners “burdened by unsustainable and rising home costs.”)
Last Monday night, City Manager George Proakis presented a draft proposal to redevelop the parking lot behind CVS in Watertown Square. There was a lot to like.
Redevelopment of the parking lot, along with several adjacent private parcels of land, would add 200-300 new units of market rate housing, including 30-45 new deed-restricted affordable units through our inclusionary zoning ordinance. And it will add a new public space to the Square in the form of a park or plaza.
But this proposal also spends one of our city’s most precious resources — public land — on a construction project that doesn’t make residents’ lives more affordable, doesn’t make financial sense for the city, and that the city’s own reporting says we don’t really need.
Housing for Cars Watertown?
The centerpiece of the Manager’s proposal is a parking garage on city-owned land that contains roughly two hundred metered spaces over first-floor retail.
Despite the fact that city-owned land is the single best opportunity to build new 100% affordable housing (according to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council presentation), the proposed garage does not include any housing above it. Additionally, the parking fees generated won’t actually cover the cost of building or maintaining the garage.
As Manager Proakis explained, the cost of the garage is also the reason the proposal needs to include a market rate housing development instead of 100% affordable housing. To cover all the garage’s costs, the city needs the higher tax revenue provided by new market-rate housing.
We could be using that revenue to subsidize affordable housing over this garage, or elsewhere in the city. We should dedicate that new tax revenue and our public land for a better purpose aligned with our community’s goals.
Prioritizing the use of public land and acquiring land for deeply affordable housing are elements of our Housing Plan, our Comprehensive Plan, and our Community Preservation Plan. We have here in the CVS lot a rare opportunity to make affordable housing a reality.
Instead, we’re using it to house cars.
There is No Demand for This
The city’s own 2019 parking management plan found that 25% of public parking spaces in the Square are vacant at any given time. This study was done before parking rates were doubled in 2021, which may have driven up the vacancy rate.
The city’s proposal trades 100% affordable housing for parking, even though there are pretty much always 150 vacant public parking spaces in the Square, in addition to spaces in private lots. Plus, the city plans to add metered street parking as part of the Square redesign. More of a good thing is already on its way.
This use of city-owned land is a misstep. A parking garage gives us more of what we know we don’t need at the expense of something we desperately do need. It prioritizes temporary car storage over residents — particularly the 37.6% of Watertown renters and 28.6% of Watertown home owners who are burdened by unsustainable and rising housing costs. The city has a responsibility to serve those residents, and an opportunity to make a real difference.
An Answer Hiding in Plain Sight
In the presentation, Manager Proakis said the city couldn’t build housing above the garage because it would trigger the highrise building code, requiring 12 stories to make sense for any private developer.
This simply is not the case. That’s not just our opinion. There’s a recent counterexample one mile down the road.
Housing above a garage with retail on the first floor was recently built by a private developer in Watertown at Arsenal Yards. The Roche Brothers building, which opened in 2021, is a seven story building with first floor retail, three levels of parking, and three levels of housing.
The city didn’t explore partnership with a non-profit affordable housing developer. The city didn’t consider partnership even with itself, the Watertown Housing Authority. And it seems to have forgotten the excellent example set in Arsenal Yards.
What You Can Do
As City Council President Mark Sideris emphasized, this is only a proposal. The proposal will be refined — hopefully, to make even more new housing possible — and then it will be brought before the City Council as well as the Planning Board.
There are two options that would be much better for our community than what the Manager presented:
1 – Affordable housing above the parking garage with first-floor retail, or
2 – 100% affordable housing development instead of a garage.
We encourage every resident who cares about the future of our city to speak out in favor of a more visionary proposal that prioritizes adding affordable housing. Click here to submit your feedback to the city. It may be a more difficult path. We can do it. This is Watertown.
Sincerely,
Housing for All Watertown Steering Committee
Rita Colafella, Sam Ghilardi, Daniel Pritchard, Josh Rosmarin, and Jacky van Leeuwen
In response to the letter from Housing for All Watertown, I could support a mixed use garage + housing + retail project. However, it is not true that there is adequate parking for retail/civic (not commuter) use in Watertown center. I can only share my personal experience, which is that there are more than a few months during the year when I am unable to use the library, pick up a coffee, or shop on Main Street because the parking lot behind the library and CVS is chronically full. I am not of an age to use a Blue Bike and the weather and sidewalk conditions can prohibit walking a mile from my home. So yes, if we want to revitalize and reenergize town center, let’s ensure residents can get there and park, if that is the best available option.
I’m sure your intentions are good but Your more people in a given area does not mean happy or healthier people.
“There is No Demand for This” Clearly there is demand for this. You use erroneous numbers to try and justify you claim. At any given time there may be plenty of open spaces but in busy times there will be none. Soon there will be needs for more. Watertown has erred in not requiring more parking. Personal Transportation is not going to go out of style. It will keep changing but we are going to need it.
About the affordability – Yes, it’s way out of control but the more that gets built the more expensive everything gets. And what is with putting out numbers that have no factual backing posted about it (“45% of Watertown renters and 30% of Watertown home owners who are burdened by unsustainable and rising housing costs”)? Where does that come from?
This proposal will add 200 – 300 new units. Lets not get greedy. That’s already a lot more people and traffic.
What ever that little green space might be nice but I don’t see it as being much of an attraction.
Having open air space above the restaurants on main street to look out on the Sq. would be a great draw for people to come to the square. I hope that people will support that idea.
We need a parking garage if we want to bring more restaurants and patrons downtown. I use the current lot (CVS, Bar Cino, Tresca’s etc.) frequently. The city can focus more on affordable housing in the next phase at the old police station property and the library parking lot. As for housing on top of the garage — I’d be cool with that, but it’d be a tough sell to the people who are already freaked out by a five-story structure. (22-year Watertown resident)
Yes, building new housing is important. But it’s not the only priority in Watertown… we must also support our small business community. When potential customers know there is a place to park, they will come. It’s as simple as that. I’ve seen it work in other city revitalization efforts where I’ve lived before. Also, I am offended by this group’s arrogant attitude about pushing people out of their cars, as if by magic everyone will start walking, biking or taking public transit to the Square. We must provide a broad array of options for different types of folks to get to our Square, and that includes some availability of parking for those who will drive cars.