By Linda Scott
Watertown Resident
Is a Parking Garage in Watertown Square’s Future?
But first, a Development Timeline, or watch the “magic numbers” grow
If you have already read my previous letter, “City Government – Trust, but Verify,” this letter might seem superfluous. What I’ve tried to do here is reason through what happened to the numbers in the Watertown Square Plan. Then I tie it into plans for a parking garage. Follow along, if you’re interested.
Definition: “Unit capacity” indicates the total potential housing that could be built based on new zoning regulations, not the actual number of units scheduled to be constructed.
So, that’s the unit of measure that we are working with. Here are my observations:
1 – January 2021: The MBTA Law passed, and the State mandated we zone for 1701 units of housing in Watertown Square.
2 – November 28-30, 2023: During the City “public planning sessions,” theCity presented as zoning options: 2,631 and 6,320 housing units. The City claimed that these are the numbers that the residents said they wanted.
They provide no proof.
Watertown City Councilors and residents request that the City produce a zoning plan for the 1701 housing units mandated by the State. No 1,701 zoning document was ever provided by the City Manager and his staff throughout this entire process. They don’t say “No.” They just don’t do it.
3 – When residents get upset, the City comes up with a “compromise” number of 3,133 housing units. How this compromise was reached and with whom is not clear.
4 – July 16, 2024: The final Watertown Square Planning meeting, when the final vote will occur for the Watertown Square Plan. Remember, the number is 3,133 housing units. No other number has been shared with Watertown residents.
Near the end of the meeting, just before the vote, Councilor Palomba requests an extra height “benefit” for some buildings (with no prior notice and discussion with abutters or chance for residents to respond). Thetired City Councilors vote “yes” to this.
5 – I am guessing that Councilor Palomba’s request is what brought the compromise number up from 3,133 to 3,701 unit capacity. There is no mention of the number “4,423.”
6 – August 2024. The approved Watertown Square plan: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59e50be849fc2b3fd20a30cb/t/66ce4f027a87f76f20ceea69/1724796676229/Watertown+Square+Area+Plan_Final+Report+-+website.pdf
This is the first time the number ”4,423” shows up as the unit capacity. Question: When City planners offered the compromise number of 3,133 (now 3,701), in the fine print, were they intentionally leaving out the mixed-use category?
7 – October 2025
This is an interview with George Proakis and the Utile team for the CNU (Congress of New Urbanism) Journal in October of 2025. In that interview, I see that “4,423” is quoted as our Square’s unit capacity: “Watertown responded to a request for 1,701 new housing units by allowing 4,423 units instead.” Notice that Proakis et al are claiming that this is all part of the
MBTA plan.
See: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2025/10/17/watertown-plans-main-square-transformation
8 – March 2026
There’s an interview with Erika Oliver Jerram, Watertown Director of Community Design (DCDP) with bisnow. In this article, which is geared toward business, our unit capacity is again
listed as “over 4,400.”
9 – April 2026
At the April 6 “parking garage” meeting in the library, a question was asked about the “unit capacity” for Watertown Square. George conferred with a City employee in the audience, and then quoted the number “3,700 and change.”
So, when questioned, our City responds one way to its residents and another way to businesses and developers.
QUESTION ONE: What would YOU conclude our unit capacity to be?
QUESTION TWO: Why “two sets of books,” as it were? Why one answer for residents and a different one for developers?QUESTION THREE: Go back to when the 3,133 unit capacity
“compromise” (a made up concept) was made. Was there any mention that this number wouldn’t apply to all units built in the zoning area? Was that compromise made in good faith by the City? And were our councilors aware of this?
Perhaps there’s a logical explanation for this. If there is, I’d love to hear it. Several people have mentioned that perhaps the state was somehow involved in the 4,423 number. Hard to say without City transparency.
3,133 or 4,423 … What’s the Problem?
Why is this seen as an upsetting betrayal for people who’d like to limit density?
For those who love density, think of it this way. Suppose it was your understanding that the City was approving zoning for 4,423 more possible housing units in the Square, and then you found out that the number had been reduced to 3133, without any public discussion? What would be your reaction?
Once again, it all comes down to transparency in government.
Caution … Parking Garage Ahead
Moving forward, this is a parking garage cautionary tale.
A resident, after reading my last letter, “City Government – Trust, but Verify” and after attending the April 6th meeting, responded in quite an astute way:
“There’s obviously been a lot of time and money spent on plans and drawings and deals to put a five-story parking garage on the CVS parking lot, and build another large apartment along Spring Street…”
This resident, clearly, has been to this circus before, and she says that she’ll be at future meetings to oppose this plan. Expensive plans are being made and paid for, using public involvement as an afterthought.
Both Jeff Speck and City Manager George Proakis mentioned a year or more ago (it’s on video) that they were aware of considerable Watertown opposition to a parking garage in that location. When was the time taken to address these residents’ concerns before these expensive plans were
made? As Jeff Speck said, “We’re the ones with the expertise.”
This would appear to follow the same playbook that was used for the City Logo:
a. Make plans behind closed doors. Don’t keep citizens or city councilors up on what you’re doing.
b. Cherry-pick community input to prove your point, and knowingly ignore the concerns of large numbers of citizens.
c. Provide false options and call it “community involvement.” (Ex. We could put the parking garage on this part of the property or that. Not would a parking garage be useful and desirable to Watertown citizens in this location?)
d. Keep details and deals close to your vest until it’s practically a done deal and residents have few options and an uphill battle to counter your plans. (Including involving a very politically powerful and influential developer and tying down agreements with multiple properties, before discussing the concept with residents or city councilors).
My Final Takeaway from all of this:
A very important community step has been missed once again.
First, all Watertown residents need to be educated and aware of this parking garage possibility. Then they need to be polled professionally … not using a FlashVote (used and abused in the Watertown Logo fiasco) or a Polis poll, (where nonresidents were encouraged to vote on the Watertown Square Plan and where you could vote numerous times).
A real effort needs to be made to take the temperature of this community as a whole on the rethinking of the Square in this way.
And if our community votes favorably for this change, the question that remains is:
Where in these challenging economic times* will we get the money to pay for something like this, and what will our community have to give up for a parking garage?
*George Proakis stated in last night’s City Council budget presentation that the City of Watertown doesn’t derive much of its money from the Federal government, but our biotech businesses do.
And if some pot of money magically pops up to fund this endeavor, I’d strongly advise us and our City Councilors to look that gift horse straight in the mouth, because “government miracles” is an oxymoron.
This garage project, like the City logo, is not a done deal. What it will require, however, is folks putting in some time and effort to go to a meeting or two, talk to friends and neighbors about this, and reach out to ALL of the councilors … not just the one(s) you know best.
We should not stop at grassroots efforts, though. We should insist that our City government conducts an extensive (and not just digital) information campaign on these plans so that many of our residents who are preoccupied/overwhelmed by their daily lives understand what’s being
planned for Watertown Square. Then, and only then, can a legitimate vote on this consequential infrastructure project be made.
A reminder, we are trying something new with comments. In addition to signing your full name, please indicate where you live or how you describe yourself, such as Watertown Resident, former Watertown Resident, from Waltham, etc. That way people can get an idea “where you are coming from,” both literally and figuratively.
Thanks,
Charlie Breitrose, Watertown News Editor