Lowes Home Center -- Over and Out?

[David Evans]

Menino Pulls Support for Lowe’s Store
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

Following intense community opposition, the Menino administration has withdrawn its support for the first Lowe’s Home Improvement store in Boston.

Last summer, the North Carolina-based chain proposed a 194,679-square-foot warehouse at the abandoned Barry Controls manufacturing plant on Guest Street in Brighton. But opponents said the project would compound traffic problems, causing a nightmare for residents who already are besieged by gridlock.

Until now, Mayor Thomas M. Menino has expressed support for the project. But the mayor wanted assurances that the additional traffic could be managed. The big-box store’s fate may have been sealed at a public hearing on Monday night when the company’s traffic survey revealed that the two-level store would add 3,306 vehicle trips on weekdays and 5,068 on Saturdays, as well as 55 semi-trailers to the neighborhood.

“When we saw the traffic study, it became clear to everyone that this project would create an undue hardship for the neighborhood, especially on weekends,” said John F. Palmieri, director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). “We want to continue to work with Lowe’s to find an appropriate location in the city, but the Brighton site is not viable for that use.”

Peter Leis, a North Beacon Street resident and member of the Impact Advisory Group, a panel formed to advise the BRA on development projects, expressed shock over the city’s reversal.

“Wow,” he said. “I had heard that Mayor Menino favored the project. I’m pleased because it’s a recognition by the BRA and the city of our community’s concerns about this store.”

Leis stressed that the neighborhood is not anti-development, but that more traffic from a giant retailer would be overwhelming. “It would have been like a tidal wave coming through our streets,” Leis said. “We favor the right development, but Lowe’s is not it.”

State Rep. Michael J. Moran, a Brighton Democrat and a project critic, hailed the mayor’s decision. He praised Menino and the BRA for considering the impact that Lowe’s would have on the already traffic-choked streets of Brighton.

“There’s definitely a feeling in the neighborhood that the addition of [thousands of motorists] would be very tough for this neighborhood,” he said. “There was almost no support for Lowe’s at several public hearings. Tom Menino and the BRA pay attention to those things.”

Jeffrey Dirk, vice president at Vanasse & Assoc., an Andover-based traffic engineering firm who did the study for Lowe’s, did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

Lawrence LePere, Lowe’s site development manager, could not be reached for comment.

 

 

<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>> 

Jay Rourke

Senior Project Manager

Boston Redevelopment Authority

One City Hall Plaza

Boston Massachusetts 02201

617.918.4317 - w

617.742.7783 - f

jay.rou...@cityofboston.gov

 

---

The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

---

Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing this email and join us in saving paper.

[kathleen clifford]

Wow.  Go figure.   A large corporation providing jobs and revenue wants to move into the community and Menino opposes it.    Maybe he realizes that if someone wanted to target a large shopping complex in Allston to bomb or something we don't have the EMT coverage to support the emergency.   I vote for Allston\Brighton annexing into Watertown, at least you can shop there.   Oh wait, how much property does Harvard own there now? 

Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:07 -0500
Subject: [AB2006] Lowes Home Center -- Over and Out?
From: da...@sailonset.com
To: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com; harry.m...@autodesk.com

From Banker and Tradesman: text here; original in attachment.

 
Menino Pulls Support for Lowe's Store

By Thomas Grillo, Reporter

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Subject: Lowe's 
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:04 -0500
From: Jay.Rou...@cityofboston.gov
To: da...@sailonset.com; norman...@mindspring.com; pl...@hbs.edu; talkh...@aol.com
























height=42 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image0...@01C87ACC.6FCA38E0"
alt="cid:image0...@01C87AC9.E78ECDD0">










style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'> id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image0...@01C87ACC.6FCA38E0"
alt="cid:image0...@01C87AC9.E78ECDD0">





style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'> 






class=detailheadlinestyle1>Menino Pulls Support
for Lowe’s Store

By href="http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.author.contact.view?client_id=bankerandtradesman&story_id=198867&title=Menino%20Pulls%20Support%20for%20Lowe%26%23146%3Bs%20Store&author=Thomas%20Grillo&address=http%3A//www.bankerandtradesman.com/issues/5%5F325/breakingnews/198867%2D1.html&summary=%3Ci%3EBy%20Thomas%20Grillo%3C/i%3E%3Cbr%3EFollowing%20intense%20community%20opposition%2C%20the%20Menino%20administration%20has%20withdrawn%20its%20support%20for%20the%20first%20Lowe%26%23146%3Bs%20Home%20Improvement%20store%20in%20Boston.">style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Thomas Grillostyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>

Reporterstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>

---

Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play now!

[trenchesf...@riseup.net]

Im not sure how much they own in Watertown, but at least Watertown makes
em pay taxes like they should!
-Jake

>
> Wow. Go figure. A large corporation providing jobs and revenue wants to
> move into the community and Menino opposes it. Maybe he realizes that
> if someone wanted to target a large shopping complex in Allston to bomb or
> something we don't have the EMT coverage to support the emergency. I
> vote for Allston\Brighton annexing into Watertown, at least you can shop
> there. Oh wait, how much property does Harvard own there now?

> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:07 -0500Subject: [AB2006] Lowes Home Center

> -- Over and Out?From: da...@sailonset.comTo:
> AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com; harry.m...@autodesk.comFrom
> Banker and Tradesman: text here; original in attachment. Menino Pulls

> Support for Lowe's StoreBy Thomas Grillo, Reporter Following intense
> community opposition, the Menino administration haswithdrawn its support
> for the first Lowe's Home Improvement store inBoston. Last summer, the
> North Carolina-based chain proposed a194,679-square-foot warehouse at the
> abandoned Barry Controlsmanufacturing plant on Guest Street in Brighton.
> But opponents said theproject would compound traffic problems, causing a
> nightmare forresidents who already are besieged by gridlock. Until now,
> Mayor Thomas M. Menino has expressed support for the project.But the mayor
> wanted assurances that the additional traffic could bemanaged. The big-box
> store's fate may have been sealed at a publichearing on Monday night when
> the company's traffic survey revealed thatthe two-level store would add
> 3,306 vehicle trips on weekdays and 5,068on Saturdays, as well as 55

> semi-trailers to the neighborhood. "When we saw the traffic study, it

> became clear to everyone that thisproject would create an undue hardship
> for the neighborhood, especiallyon weekends," said John F. Palmieri,
> director of the BostonRedevelopment Authority (BRA). "We want to continue
> to work with Lowe'sto find an appropriate location in the city, but the
> Brighton site isnot viable for that use." Peter Leis, a North Beacon
> Street resident and member of the ImpactAdvisory Group, a panel formed to
> advise the BRA on developmentprojects, expressed shock over the city's

> reversal. "Wow," he said. "I had heard that Mayor Menino favored the

> project. I'mpleased because it's a recognition by the BRA and the city of
> ourcommunity's concerns about this store." Leis stressed that the
> neighborhood is not anti-development, but thatmore traffic from a giant
> retailer would be overwhelming. "It would havebeen like a tidal wave
> coming through our streets," Leis said. "We favorthe right development,

> but Lowe's is not it." State Rep. Michael J. Moran, a Brighton Democrat

> and a project critic,hailed the mayor's decision. He praised Menino and
> the BRA forconsidering the impact that Lowe's would have on the
> alreadytraffic-choked streets of Brighton. "There's definitely a feeling

> in the neighborhood that the addition of[thousands of motorists] would be

> very tough for this neighborhood," hesaid. "There was almost no support
> for Lowe's at several publichearings. Tom Menino and the BRA pay attention

> to those things." Jeffrey Dirk, vice president at Vanasse & Assoc., an

> Andover-basedtraffic engineering firm who did the study for Lowe's, did
> not returnrepeated calls seeking comment. Lawrence LePere, Lowe's site

> development manager, could not be reachedfor comment. --Forwarded Message

> Attachment--Subject: Lowe's Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:04 -0500From:

> Jay.Rou...@cityofboston.govTo: da...@sailonset.com;
> norman...@mindspring.com; pl...@hbs.edu; talkh...@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

> height=42 id="Picture_x0020_1"
> src="http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http%3a%2f%2f207.46.11.249%2fatt%2fGetAttachment.aspx&hm__qs=file%3d13562799-e1e5-4b18-898f-2df6483c99fe.gif%26ct%3daW1hZ2UvZ2lm%26name%3daW1hZ2UwMDEuZ2lm%26inline%3d1%26rfc%3d0%26empty%3dFalse%26imgsrc%3dcid%253aimage001.gif%254001C87ACC.6FCA38E0&oneredir=1&ip=10.1.106.222&d=d1771&mf=0"alt="cid:image0...@01C87AC9.E78ECDD0">
>
>
>
>
> <SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'> id="Picture_x0020_2"
> src="http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http%3a%2f%2f207.46.11.249%2fatt%2fGetAttachment.aspx&hm__qs=file%3d94a863cd-952a-482a-b1e4-a3010568a1e2.gif%26ct%3daW1hZ2UvZ2lm%26name%3daW1hZ2UwMDIuZ2lm%26inline%3d1%26rfc%3d0%26empty%3dFalse%26imgsrc%3dcid%253aimage002.gif%254001C87ACC.6FCA38E0&oneredir=1&ip=10.1.106.222&d=d1771&mf=0"alt="cid:image0...@01C87AC9.E78ECDD0">
>
> <SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>
> <SPANclass=detailheadlinestyle1>Menino Pulls Supportfor Lowe's StoreBy
> <Ahref="http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.author.contact.view?client_id=bankerandtradesman&story_id=198867&title=Menino%20Pulls%20Support%20for%20Lowe%26%23146%3Bs%20Store&author=Thomas%20Grillo&address=http%3A//www.bankerandtradesman.com/issues/5%5F325/breakingnews/198867%2D1.html&summary=%3Ci%3EBy%20Thomas%20Grillo%3C/i%3E%3Cbr%3EFollowing%20intense%20community%20opposition%2C%20the%20Menino%20administration%20has%20withdrawn%20its%20support%20for%20the%20first%20Lowe%26%23146%3Bs%20Home%20Improvement%20store%20in%20Boston."><SPANstyle='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Thomas
> Grillo<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Reporter<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>

> Following intense community opposition, the Menino administration

> haswithdrawn its support for the first Lowe's Home Improvement store

> inBoston.
> Last summer, the North Carolina-based chain proposed a

> 194,679-square-footwarehouse at the abandoned Barry Controls manufacturing
> plant on Guest Streetin Brighton. But opponents said the project would
> compound traffic problems,causing a nightmare for residents who already

> are besieged by gridlock.
> Until now, Mayor Thomas M. Menino has expressed support for the project.

> Butthe mayor wanted assurances that the additional traffic could be
> managed. Thebig-box store's fate may have been sealed at a public hearing
> on Mondaynight when the company's traffic survey revealed that the
> two-level storewould add 3,306 vehicle trips on weekdays and 5,068 on
> Saturdays, as well as 55semi-trailers to the neighborhood.

> "When we saw the traffic study, it became clear to everyone that

> thisproject would create an undue hardship for the neighborhood,
> especially onweekends," said John F. Palmieri, director of the Boston
> RedevelopmentAuthority (BRA). "We want to continue to work with Lowe's to
> findan appropriate location in the city, but the Brighton site is not
> viable forthat use."

> Peter Leis, a North Beacon Street resident and member of the Impact

> AdvisoryGroup, a panel formed to advise the BRA on development projects,
> expressedshock over the city's reversal.
> "Wow," he said. "I had heard that Mayor Menino favored theproject. I'm
> pleased because it's a recognition by the BRA and thecity of our

> community's concerns about this store."
> Leis stressed that the neighborhood is not anti-development, but that

> moretraffic from a giant retailer would be overwhelming. "It would have
> beenlike a tidal wave coming through our streets," Leis said. "We favorthe

> right development, but Lowe's is not it."
> State Rep. Michael J. Moran, a Brighton Democrat and a project

> critic,hailed the mayor's decision. He praised Menino and the BRA
> forconsidering the impact that Lowe's would have on the
> alreadytraffic-choked streets of Brighton.
> "There's definitely a feeling in the neighborhood that theaddition of
> [thousands of motorists] would be very tough for thisneighborhood," he
> said. "There was almost no support forLowe's at several public hearings.
> Tom Menino and the BRA pay attentionto those things."

> Jeffrey Dirk, vice president at Vanasse & Assoc., an Andover-basedtraffic
> engineering firm who did the study for Lowe's, did not returnrepeated
> calls seeking comment.
> Lawrence LePere, Lowe's site development manager, could not be reachedfor

> comment.
>
>
> <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
> Jay Rourke
> Senior Project Manager
> Boston Redevelopment Authority
> One City Hall Plaza
> Boston Massachusetts 02201
> 617.918.4317 - w
> 617.742.7783 - f
> jay.rou...@cityofboston.gov
>
>
>
>
>

> The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be
> confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to
> Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
> from any computer.
>
>
>
>

> Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing
> this email and join us in saving paper.
>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
> power.

> http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
> >
>

[David Evans]

Clearly you don't live near North Beacon Street! Or try to drive on it. Or
cross it. Or Market Street. Or even Cambridge/Washington Street.
A Lowes would be great for many reasons. But there's a reason why most
Lowes are near highway interchanges.
dge

[Jim Creamer]

Ditto, Dave.
A Lowe's would be fine if everyone could carry home their lumber, etc. in a
handcart or on the bus.
But 5,000 vehicle trips on weekends, 55 semi-trailers, whoa, come on.
Oh, can you can still shop in Watertown even if we are not annexed to it.

[David Evans]

Kathy,
You've hit it! Many of us know the cut-throughs. And if there was more
traffic on the arterial streets, more people would find and take
neighborhood streets. The developers promised to look at ways to keep
shoppers from taking alternate routes -- which would have the same effect
on us! The answer is less traffic; best solved by better public
transportation, IMHO. Only then can we consider denser development.
dge

>
> i have lived in allston brighton all my 50 years. which is long enough
> to know that i can get to that shopping center without going on to north
> beacon street or market street at all.
> now if the city planners only allowed us to go home the same route.
> (sigh).
>
>> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:24:07 -0500> Subject: [AB2006] Re: Lowes Home

>> Center -- Over and Out?> From: da...@sailonset.com> To:

>> AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com> > > Clearly you don't live near

[Charlie Denison]

Kathleen,

Until the results of the traffic study came out, the Mayor was the
biggest proponent of this project. I think he wants to see jobs and
revenue more than anyone. However, he and the BRA made the (wise, in
my opinion) decision that a Lowes in Brighton is not the best way to
accomplish this. WGBH, for example, certainly provides better jobs
(both in quality and pay) and less traffic burden on the neighborhood
than a Lowes would. It sounds like the city and many others recognize
that there are much better possible options for new development in the
neighborhood.

Charlie

On Feb 29, 3:54 pm, kathleen clifford <mrs_cliff...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Wow. Go figure. A large corporation providing jobs and revenue wants to move into the community and Menino opposes it. Maybe he realizes that if someone wanted to target a large shopping complex in Allston to bomb or something we don't have the EMT coverage to support the emergency. I vote for Allston\Brighton annexing into Watertown, at least you can shop there. Oh wait, how much property does Harvard own there now?

> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:07 -0500Subject: [AB2006] Lowes Home Center -- Over and Out?From: d...@sailonset.comTo: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com; harry.matti...@autodesk.comFrom Banker and Tradesman: text here; original in attachment. Menino Pulls Support for Lowe's StoreBy Thomas Grillo, Reporter Following intense community opposition, the Menino administration haswithdrawn its support for the first Lowe's Home Improvement store inBoston. Last summer, the North Carolina-based chain proposed a194,679-square-foot warehouse at the abandoned Barry Controlsmanufacturing plant on Guest Street in Brighton. But opponents said theproject would compound traffic problems, causing a nightmare forresidents who already are besieged by gridlock. Until now, Mayor Thomas M. Menino has expressed support for the project.But the mayor wanted assurances that the additional traffic could bemanaged. The big-box store's fate may have been sealed at a publichearing on Monday night when the company's traffic survey revealed thatthe two-level store would add 3,306 vehicle trips on weekdays and 5,068on Saturdays, as well as 55 semi-trailers to the neighborhood. "When we saw the traffic study, it became clear to everyone that thisproject would create an undue hardship for the neighborhood, especiallyon weekends," said John F. Palmieri, director of the BostonRedevelopment Authority (BRA). "We want to continue to work with Lowe'sto find an appropriate location in the city, but the Brighton site isnot viable for that use." Peter Leis, a North Beacon Street resident and member of the ImpactAdvisory Group, a panel formed to advise the BRA on developmentprojects, expressed shock over the city's reversal. "Wow," he said. "I had heard that Mayor Menino favored the project. I'mpleased because it's a recognition by the BRA and the city of ourcommunity's concerns about this store." Leis stressed that the neighborhood is not anti-development, but thatmore traffic from a giant retailer would be overwhelming. "It would havebeen like a tidal wave coming through our streets," Leis said. "We favorthe right development, but Lowe's is not it." State Rep. Michael J. Moran, a Brighton Democrat and a project critic,hailed the mayor's decision. He praised Menino and the BRA forconsidering the impact that Lowe's would have on the alreadytraffic-choked streets of Brighton. "There's definitely a feeling in the neighborhood that the addition of[thousands of motorists] would be very tough for this neighborhood," hesaid. "There was almost no support for Lowe's at several publichearings. Tom Menino and the BRA pay attention to those things." Jeffrey Dirk, vice president at Vanasse & Assoc., an Andover-basedtraffic engineering firm who did the study for Lowe's, did not returnrepeated calls seeking comment. Lawrence LePere, Lowe's site development manager, could not be reachedfor comment. --Forwarded Message Attachment--Subject: Lowe's Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:04 -0500From: Jay.Rourke....@cityofboston.govTo: d...@sailonset.com; normanogr...@mindspring.com; pl...@hbs.edu; talkhan...@aol.com
>
> height=42 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http..."alt="cid:image001....@01C87AC9.E78ECDD0">
>
> <SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'> id="Picture_x0020_2" src="http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http..."alt="cid:image002....@01C87AC9.E78ECDD0">

>
> <SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>

> <SPANclass=detailheadlinestyle1>Menino Pulls Supportfor Lowe's StoreBy <Ahref="http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.author.contact.view?...."><SPANstyle='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Thomas Grillo<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Reporter<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>
> Following intense community opposition, the Menino administration haswithdrawn its support for the first Lowe's Home Improvement store inBoston.
> Last summer, the North Carolina-based chain proposed a 194,679-square-footwarehouse at the abandoned Barry Controls manufacturing plant on Guest Streetin Brighton. But opponents said the project would compound traffic problems,causing a nightmare for residents who already are besieged by gridlock.
> Until now, Mayor Thomas M. Menino has expressed support for the project. Butthe mayor wanted assurances that the additional traffic could be managed. Thebig-box store's fate may have been sealed at a public hearing on Mondaynight when the company's traffic survey revealed that the two-level storewould add 3,306 vehicle trips on weekdays and 5,068 on Saturdays, as well as 55semi-trailers to the neighborhood.
> "When we saw the traffic study, it became clear to everyone that thisproject would create an undue hardship for the neighborhood, especially onweekends," said John F. Palmieri, director of the Boston RedevelopmentAuthority (BRA). "We want to continue to work with Lowe's to findan appropriate location in the city, but the Brighton site is not viable forthat use."
> Peter Leis, a North Beacon Street resident and member of the Impact AdvisoryGroup, a panel formed to advise the BRA on development projects, expressedshock over the city's reversal.
> "Wow," he said. "I had heard that Mayor Menino favored theproject. I'm pleased because it's a recognition by the BRA and thecity of our community's concerns about this store."
> Leis stressed that the neighborhood is not anti-development, but that moretraffic from a giant retailer would be overwhelming. "It would have beenlike a tidal wave coming through our streets," Leis said. "We favorthe right development, but Lowe's is not it."
> State Rep. Michael J. Moran, a Brighton Democrat and a project critic,hailed the mayor's decision. He praised Menino and the BRA forconsidering the impact that Lowe's would have on the alreadytraffic-choked streets of Brighton.
> "There's definitely a feeling in the neighborhood that theaddition of [thousands of motorists] would be very tough for thisneighborhood," he said. "There was almost no support forLowe's at several public hearings. Tom Menino and the BRA pay attentionto those things."
> Jeffrey Dirk, vice president at Vanasse & Assoc., an Andover-basedtraffic engineering firm who did the study for Lowe's, did not returnrepeated calls seeking comment.
> Lawrence LePere, Lowe's site development manager, could not be reachedfor comment.

>
> <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
> Jay Rourke
> Senior Project Manager
> Boston Redevelopment Authority
> One City Hall Plaza
> Boston Massachusetts 02201
> 617.918.4317 - w
> 617.742.7783 - f

> jay.rourke....@cityofboston.gov

>
> The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>

> Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing this email and join us in saving paper.
>

> _________________________________________________________________
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power.http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlin...
>
> image001.gif
> 1KViewDownload
>
> image002.gif
> 1KViewDownload

[Charlie Denison]

Indeed!  The mayor was the biggest proponent for this project, but the location just isn't right at all.  I'm glad he realized that after looking at the traffic study results.  Certainly something can be found for that location that generates much less traffic and perhaps even provides higher quality jobs than a Lowes.

I've always thought that would be a decent location for more of a mixed use development:  ground floor retail with housing and/or offices above.  The Stop and Shop at one end and the fitness club at the other would serve residents very well.  Retail and small shops could serve the office workers nearby as well as other residents.

Charlie

[Tamara]

I don't think that the Brighton Stop and Shop would be able to stay in business if that kind of traffic was happening, I know I'd shop else where.

Tamara

Jim Creamer <jrcr...@rcn.com> wrote:

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[kathleen clifford]

i have lived in allston brighton all my 50 years.   which is long enough to know that i can get to that shopping center without going on to north beacon street or market street at all.  
now if the city planners only allowed us to go home the same route.   (sigh).
 


> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:24:07 -0500

> Subject: [AB2006] Re: Lowes Home Center -- Over and Out?
> From: da...@sailonset.com
> To: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
>
>

[joh...@comcast.net]

It wasn't to long ago that people were complaining about the traffic
that WGBH was going to create. Not everyone can have high paying jobs.
Lowes would have put a lot of people in Brighton and Allston to
work.There are a lot of part time jobs at Lowes that retired people
could walk to work. No one complained about the traffic caused by the
Mayor when he had people park there for the BC football games.
John Thompson
Brighton

On Feb 29, 4:09 pm, Charlie Denison <cdeni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Kathleen,
>
> Until the results of the traffic study came out, the Mayor was the
> biggest proponent of this project.  I think he wants to see jobs and
> revenue more than anyone.  However, he and the BRA made the (wise, in
> my opinion) decision that a Lowes in Brighton is not the best way to
> accomplish this.  WGBH, for example, certainly provides better jobs
> (both in quality and pay) and less traffic burden on the neighborhood
> than a Lowes would.  It sounds like the city and many others recognize
> that there are much better possible options for new development in the
> neighborhood.
>
> Charlie
>
> On Feb 29, 3:54 pm, kathleen clifford <mrs_cliff...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wow.  Go figure.   A large corporation providing jobs and revenue wants to move into the community and Menino opposes it.    Maybe he realizes that if someone wanted to target a large shopping complex in Allston to bomb or something we don't have the EMT coverage to support the emergency.   I vote for Allston\Brighton annexing into Watertown, at least you can shop there.   Oh wait, how much property does Harvard own there now?
> > Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:07 -0500Subject: [AB2006] Lowes Home Center -- Over and Out?From: d...@sailonset.comTo: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com; harry.matti...@autodesk.comFrom Banker and Tradesman: text here; original in attachment. Menino Pulls Support for Lowe's StoreBy Thomas Grillo, Reporter Following intense community opposition, the Menino administration haswithdrawn its support for the first Lowe's Home Improvement store inBoston. Last summer, the North Carolina-based chain proposed a194,679-square-foot warehouse at the abandoned Barry Controlsmanufacturing plant on Guest Street in Brighton. But opponents said theproject would compound traffic problems, causing a nightmare forresidents who already are besieged by gridlock. Until now, Mayor Thomas M. Menino has expressed support for the project.But the mayor wanted assurances that the additional traffic could bemanaged. The big-box store's fate may have been sealed at a publichearing on Monday night when the company's traffic survey revealed thatthe two-level store would add 3,306 vehicle trips on weekdays and 5,068on Saturdays, as well as 55 semi-trailers to the neighborhood. "When we saw the traffic study, it became clear to everyone that thisproject would create an undue hardship for the neighborhood, especiallyon weekends," said John F. Palmieri, director of the BostonRedevelopment Authority (BRA). "We want to continue to work with Lowe'sto find an appropriate location in the city, but the Brighton site isnot viable for that use." Peter Leis, a North Beacon Street resident and member of the ImpactAdvisory Group, a panel formed to advise the BRA on developmentprojects, expressed shock over the city's reversal. "Wow," he said. "I had heard that Mayor Menino favored the project. I'mpleased because it's a recognition by the BRA and the city of ourcommunity's concerns about this store." Leis stressed that the neighborhood is not anti-development, but thatmore traffic from a giant retailer would be overwhelming. "It would havebeen like a tidal wave coming through our streets," Leis said. "We favorthe right development, but Lowe's is not it." State Rep. Michael J. Moran, a Brighton Democrat and a project critic,hailed the mayor's decision. He praised Menino and the BRA forconsidering the impact that Lowe's would have on the alreadytraffic-choked streets of Brighton. "There's definitely a feeling in the neighborhood that the addition of[thousands of motorists] would be very tough for this neighborhood," hesaid. "There was almost no support for Lowe's at several publichearings. Tom Menino and the BRA pay attention to those things." Jeffrey Dirk, vice president at Vanasse & Assoc., an Andover-basedtraffic engineering firm who did the study for Lowe's, did not returnrepeated calls seeking comment. Lawrence LePere, Lowe's site development manager, could not be reachedfor comment.  --Forwarded Message Attachment--Subject: Lowe's Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:13:04 -0500From: Jay.Rourke....@cityofboston.govTo: d...@sailonset.com; normanogr...@mindspring.com; pl...@hbs.edu; talkhan...@aol.com
>
> > height=42 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http..."alt="cid:image001....@01C87AC9.E78ECDD0">
>
> > <SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'> id="Picture_x0020_2" src="http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http..."alt="cid:image002....@01C87AC9.E78ECDD0">
>
> > <SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>

> > <SPANclass=detailheadlinestyle1>Menino Pulls Supportfor Lowe's StoreBy <Ahref="http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.author.contact.view?...."><SPANstyle='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Thomas Grillo<SPANstyle='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Reporter<SPANstyle='font-si­ze:10.0pt;color:black'>

> > 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[talkh...@aol.com]

Greetings to all,

 

I would like to present another perspective to the possibility of the opening of Lowes on Guest Street (prior Barry Controls site)

 

for the record, I am a member of the Impact Advisory Group (IAG) and for the record this is my personal opinion.  I also want to state that I am very familiar with this area of Brighton as during my childhood I lived 4 streets up from No. Beacon St. and my mom still resides there.  I travel No. Beacon Street several times daily.

 

I am surprised (to say the very least) at the opposition of bringing Lowes into our neighborhood.  I am also repulsed by the shoddy reporting by Thomas Grillo of Bankers and Tradesman.  I believe his article was not accurate and certainly not objective as to the pulse of the entire community. 

My perspective is this:  Lowes is looking to open a new neighborhood style home center.  This is a great opportunity for our community and as it has been stated, was supported by Mayor Tom Menino ... and for very good reason.  With the opening of this store ... we are looking at the creation of hundreds of jobs in a time of great economic stress...jobs for our residents ... from teens to seniors.  With the opening of this store... we are looking at a commitment from Lowes to INVEST ... over a MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS of (public) infrastructure IMPROVEMENTS to the area that will improve pedestrian/biking and vehicular mobility.  With the opening of Lowes ... we are looking at job creation to BUILD ... both the interior and exterior site work... employing plumbers, electricians, carpenters ..etc.  With the opening of Lowes, we are looking at community investment to our schools and community organizations via mitigation and community benefits.  For every dollar spent in a neighborhood ... 60 cents of that dollar is reinvested via tax revenue, payroll, community investment, etc.  This is a great opportunity for Allston/Brighton and the City of Boston.


Opposition of this project is of course TRAFFIC!  And that is of great concern to us all... but lets look at this again... As stated in the public presentation last week we will be looking at 55 semi trailers PER WEEK ... that is an average of 11 trips per day... spread out from 7 am to 7 pm.  It is certainly not a convoy of trucks plowing through the neighborhood.  We are looking at an average of 3306 vehicular trips per day... that is ROUND TRIPS ... which means an average of 1653 vehicles a day in a time span of about 17 hours ... we are looking at weekend traffic of an average of 5068 vehicular trips per day again ROUND TRIPs which means 2534 vehicles in a time span of about 17 hours.   The infrastructure improvements include traffic synchronization with a very inclusive radius that spans beyond Union Square ... up to St. Elizabeth's and Market Street...also, way finding signage to route traffic away from residential roadways will be included..

What can be at this site if not Lowes???  Who knows ... but I do know it is not going to be a public park... Something will go at this site... and I believe it will NOT bring anything close to the improvements that are being offered now... lets just say it is a site for an office building... if we want to see grid lock ... that will certainly create gridlock ... just imagine the hours of 7:30 am to 9:30 am and then again from 4 to 6 pm ... we will experience the peak hours of employees coming and going from New Balance, WGBH and the several other employees of 20 Guest Street as well as the employees of this proposed site as well as the ongoing travel throughout the day... If it is a mixed use site w/ retail on ground floor and residential on upper floor(s) ...  and yes...that too creates traffic ... parking???  and we are not in a prime housing market ... as you know ... the water works development in Cleveland Circle is having a tough time moving the residential sites there... We do not need another white elephant as we have w/ the empty building on Lincoln Street.  Not to mention the loss of revenue to our neighborhood and the COB if any of these other scenarios come to fruition.

At this time the Allston/Brighton community is experiencing a huge development surge ... I say LUCKY US!  And I mean that... I look at other communities throughout the state and country and see blight, joblessness, etc... I am hoping we can take another look at this and see it as opportunity.  Yes we will experience more traffic ... believe me... whatever goes there WILL create traffic.  We need the developments that come into this community to WORK for us ...and I believe the Lowes development will.

Thanks so much for your attention to this ... I feel strongly about this... I am hoping to see if we can get another community meeting to further discuss the possibility of Lowes coming to A/B.

Sincerely,
Rosie Hanlon 

---

Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.

[David Evans]

Rosie,
Let me address one point. The increase they described for one (1!) hour
mid-day Saturday would up the traffic count by 150%. And this was after
they (and BTD) lowered the expected traffic by a half (I'm going on what
one of the New Balance people said)!
I won't even talk about what the difference would be on Sunday; oddly
enough they didn't either.
As I said in my post last week, it would be wonderful to have such a store
here. But not exactly here.
dge

>
> Greetings to all,
> I would like to present another perspective to the possibility of the
> opening of Lowes on Guest Street (prior Barry Controls site)
>
>

> Sincerely,
> Rosie Hanlon?

[joh...@comcast.net]

David, Is this all new traffic or is a lot of it people out shopping
any way? What is the normal traffic count for one hour mid-day
Saturday? Where would you like to see the store?
John Thompson
Brighton

> > Rosie Hanlon?- Hide quoted text -

[David Evans]

John,
It's new traffic, based on their newly-lowered estimates. Some folks, but
probably not many, will stop for 2x4s along with their milk and bread. If
I wanted nails, I'd still go to Model Hardware for a faster trip.

Where else? If Harvard hadn't snuck in, I'd say the old Sears site, which
is by a highway interchange, although a rather crowded one already. Or
somewhere off Western Ave, if there were room for more traffic and the
agreement of that neighborhood.

Perhaps box box stores just don't belong in an "urban" neighborhood,
already too dense to handle normal traffic and a few special events
without congestion.

This is what planning is all about. We have zoning, but that obviously
doesn't restrict new development. What do we want our neighborhood to look
like? What do we need? How can we accommodate those needs? What does the
city need from us? What do we have to give up to provide that?

dge

[Michael Pahre]

joh...@comcast.net wrote:
> David, Is this all new traffic or is a lot of it people out shopping
> any way? What is the normal traffic count for one hour mid-day
> Saturday? Where would you like to see the store?
> John Thompson
> Brighton
>

John,

While I did not attend last week's meeting, I have read the traffic
section of the PNF which shows the preliminary traffic study and the
methodology.

Lowe's starts with an estimate of the total number of vehicular trips to
their store. They they reduce that number of trips by a fudge factor to
account for people who are already visiting a store nearby (e.g., Stop &
Shop).

In the PNF, they said that the fudge factor could reduce the number of
trips by 50%, but they assumed a more conservative 25% reduction in the
PNF. Dave Evan's response, apparently based on last week's meeting
presentation, indicates that they went for the bigger reduction of 50%
-- a way to minimize the traffic impacts.

Even with that approach to minimizing traffic in their study by 50%
rather than 25%, the resulting increase in traffic from building the
store still appears to have far more than Mayor Menino could accept for
that neighborhood and its infrastructure.

-Mike

> On Mar 3, 8:54 pm, "David Evans" <d...@sailonset.com> wrote:
>
>> Rosie,
>> Let me address one point. The increase they described for one (1!) hour
>> mid-day Saturday would up the traffic count by 150%. And this was after
>> they (and BTD) lowered the expected traffic by a half (I'm going on what
>> one of the New Balance people said)!
>> I won't even talk about what the difference would be on Sunday; oddly
>> enough they didn't either.
>> As I said in my post last week, it would be wonderful to have such a store
>> here. But not exactly here.
>> dge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Greetings to all,
>>> I would like to present another perspective to the possibility of the
>>> opening of Lowes on Guest Street (prior Barry Controls site)
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Rosie Hanlon?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>
> >
>
>

--
Michael A. Pahre
76 Foster Street Phone (617)787-8228
Brighton, MA 02135 USA Cell (617)216-1447
pa...@comcast.net
Brighton Centered Blog: http://brighton-community.blogspot.com/

[joh...@comcast.net]

A few years ago friends of mine wanted to open a business in Allston.
The activist made it very difficult for them. They opened up in
Watertown. The building that they wanted to occupy is now owned by
Harvard. The area that Lowes wants to open is zoned for business. Why
not let a business open there? What affect will traffic have on other
businesses in the area? you may be surprised by the answer.
John

On Mar 4, 9:48 am, Michael Pahre <pa...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Brighton Centered Blog:  http://brighton-community.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted text -

[David Schaich]

I'll just address one picky point as well: the number of round trips is
the same as the number of vehicles, not twice as high. Each vehicle
makes one round trip, or two one-way trips. So halving the number of
vehicles in the discussion below is incorrect.

Cheers,
David Schaich

AllstonBrighton2006 group wrote:
> ==============================================================================
> TOPIC: Lowes Home Center ~ another perspective
> http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006/browse_thread/thread/e72beffe6e9632b5?hl=en
> ==============================================================================
>
> == 1 of 2 ==
> Date: Mon, Mar 3 2008 1:11 pm
> From: talkh...@aol.com
>
> ...
>
> Opposition of this project is of course TRAFFIC!? And that is of great concern to us all... but lets look at this again... As stated in the public presentation last week we will be looking at 55 semi trailers PER WEEK ... that is an average of 11 trips per day... spread out from 7 am to 7 pm.? It is certainly not a convoy of trucks plowing through the neighborhood.? We are looking at an average of 3306 vehicular trips per day... that is ROUND TRIPS ... which means an average of 1653 vehicles a day in a time span?of about 17 hours ...?we are looking at weekend traffic of an average of 5068 vehicular trips per day again ROUND TRIPs?which means 2534 vehicles in a time span of?about 17 hours.???The infrastructure improvements include traffic synchronization with a very inclusive radius that spans beyond Union Square ... up to St. Elizabeth's and Market Street...also, way finding signage to route traffic away from residential roadways will be included..
>
> ...
>

[Charlie Denison]

I don't think anyone will argue that new businesses are a good thing for Brighton. The questions to ask I think are:

What kind of businesses do you want?
Should they have a regional draw or a local draw?
Should they be car-oriented or people-oriented?
Should they be in an existing business district along with other complementary businesses or off by themselves?

In general, I would think that Brighton would fare best with businesses with local draw, more people oriented than car oriented, but potentially providing shared parking that other nearby businesses could benefit from, and located in existing business districts or in a newly created clusters of business.

Based on my own knowledge, a Lowes in the proposed location would surely have a regional draw, as it would be the only Lowes in the immediate Boston area. It would be mainly car-oriented with all of its parking dedicated solely for Lowes. And it would be pretty much by itself, not near any other businesses. So, you'll end up with potentially a lot of regional traffic, especially on weekends, and those customers would most likely be going to Lowes and then going home. For the most part Brighton does not have many car-oriented business (nor should it in my opinion). If Brighton needs more hardware or home improvement stores, they should be smaller and neighborhood oriented and not encourage regional traffic on an already overburdened street grid.

Charlie

[Eva Webster]

On 3/4/08 9:48 AM, "Michael Pahre" <pa...@comcast.net> wrote:

> ...the resulting increase in traffic from building the store still appears to

> have far more than Mayor Menino could accept for that neighborhood and its
> infrastructure.

I honestly do not think that Mayor Menino himself determined that Lowe's would cause too much traffic.  This mayor understands very well the importance of bringing commerce and jobs to Boston to keep the City economically sound (plus there are some innovative and effective ways to mitigate traffic).

But with the mayoral elections coming up, it's obvious that City Hall decision makers on every level are trying to keep neighborhood residents throughout Boston happy -- and they must have concluded, based on feedback from some A-B folks, that Lowe's is not wanted here.

If that decision is final, I am deeply disappointed.  I rarely agree with Rosie Hanlon, but in this case I found myself agreeing with her that this matter should be revisited.  Rosie brought up pro-business arguments, but my interest in having Lowe’s in A-B is purely from the residential standpoint.  I actually believe that it would be good for the neighborhood.

Granted, no one (including myself) looks forward to having congested streets, but Rosie was correct in stating that whatever gets built on that site will be large and bring quite a bit of traffic (and, I mighty add, after the elections, the neighborhood may have less control over what happens there than we have now).  One thing is for sure — this commercially-zoned location will not stay undeveloped in perpetuity, and its size is such that there will be impacts on the neighborhood no matter what.

Rosie was also correct when she noted that Lowe’s traffic would be spread-out throughout the day, whereas a big office complex would be more detrimental because 9-5 workers would clog the streets in rush hours -- making it harder for A-B residents to commute to work.

Also, Lowe’s could be asked to hire talented traffic engineers/planners to design a creative, thoughtful network of entrances and exits to the store’s parking and loading areas — in order to disperse traffic in ways that would not burden just one or two existing streets.  

Additionally, the neighborhood could ask the BRA to make Lowe’s commit to hire only local residents who could walk to work, which would help ease traffic.  At the same time, this would help many of our A-B neighbors who need employment opportunities (as suggested by John Thompson).  Please note that we would not be able to get such an arrangement with an office complex (or even a retail complex with multiple businesses).  A retail/office space developer could not be asked to impose a requirement on their office and retail tenant companies that they hire just from A-B.

I feel very strongly that we should find a way to accommodate Lowe’s for these three main reasons:

• A healthy, well-planned neighborhood should have a diversity of uses, including some large retail.  It bothers me that A-B has just housing and large institutional uses (with some restaurants/bars sprinkled here and there).  That limits the number of local jobs and locally available merchandise, materials, and services.
  

• Over 80% (maybe even 90%) of A-B’s residential structures are 50-70 years old and older.  Those old homes require constant updating.  A-B homeowners are middle-class people who often work on home improvement projects themselves.  It would be very convenient to have a well-supplied full-service Home Center in our neighborhood.  Busy, working people would find it easier to take care of their homes.
  

• The cost of gasoline is certain to remain high even when the Iraq war is over -- it will keep going up because of the global demand from China and other developing countries.  That means that the days of cheap driving in the US are over.  In a year or two, we may be paying nearly $5 per gallon!  As neighborhood residents concerned with good planning, we should insist on having all necessities of life easily accessible to us — so it is not necessary to take long trips to multiple stores to get what people need.  (Cutting down on gasoline use is not only good for our pockets, but the environment as well.)  
  

After K-Mart at Brighton Mills closed, we now have to drive to Watertown, or as far as Natick, to get some basics that every household needs.  We had no say in that decision (which was up to Harvard), but now we have an opportunity to welcome Lowe’s, and we’re about to screw it up.  Very unwise in my opinion.

Traffic issues are important, but they should be weighed against other considerations.  We need a variety of uses.  (To cut down on traffic, I would argue that the proposed 400-unit Charlesview has no business being so huge.  Most people living there will have, or sooner or later will need, cars when they get jobs in places not are easily accessible on public transportation.)

Eva  Webster

[David Evans]

A couple of responses to issues raised: one meaningful, the other
slilghtly less so (but in character).

There's businesses and there's businesses. As Mike Moran has stated
several times, how another world headquarters to jion WGHB, New Balance
and Newbury Comics? Construction and jobs and taxes, but not 24x7 traffic.

Location? There's a big open space between Cleveland Circle and the
Waterworks. Putting a big box store there would be convenient to Brighton,
Brookline, Chestnut Hill and Netwon. It's at a major crossroads and near
two T lines. And save the city or DCR big time on maintenance!

dge

[kathleen clifford]

Putting a Lowes near Cleveland Circle will certainly be helpful to those people who live in those areas and the 'burbs but i personally would find Watertown much more convenient in that instance.  
 
Regarding 24x7 traffic:  i believe adding more m-f\9-5 type corporations would be a far heavier toll on traffic and the local's ability to get to\from home on a daily basis than a large retail business would.    it seems to me that large semis usually do their business in very early morning hours that would have very little effect on the daily commuter.
 
The job opportunities that the World Headquarters-type corporations and the lofty snobbery of the elite educational institutions and public television corporations will offer mostly target a level of employees that are not represented in the local population.   Last time i looked at job listings at WGBH I was disappointed at their need for hiring overeducated people in fairly lowpaying positions (jobs only a person with a trust fund could love).
 
A good point was brought up regarding the age of houses in the area and need for update.   I spend half my weekend time making trips out to Woburn and sometimes even to Watertown to visit Lowes or Home Depot -- so i can fix up my house in order to sell it and get the heck out of Allston-the-neighborhood-that-the-city-forgot.   Hmm not sure if that is an argument for or against the Lowes.
 
Additionally when I make a trip out to Woburn to visit Lowes, which stocks far more than either Home Depot or the neighborhood hardware store does, I will frequently visit other stores in the area and squeeze in a dinner at a nearby restaurant.   It's good for some other citiy's economy, but not the one i live in.
 
 
 
> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:21:26 -0500
> Subject: [AB2006] Re: Lowes Home Center ~ please reconsider opposition
> From: da...@sailonset.com
> To: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com

[joh...@comcast.net]

Charlie, Here are my answers:
1) A business that will draw people to the area because they will
support other other businesses in the area.
2) A regional draw (see 1)
3) Both
4) In an area with existing business, complimentary are not.
Allston has an excellent hardware store on a street that has a lot of
traffic.They do quite well. We should ask them if the traffic helps or
hurts them.
John Thompson

> > > Brighton Centered Blog:  http://brighton-community.blogspot.com/-Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ab_resi...@hotmail.com]

Eva,
I would like to address the points you make concerning your reply.
Please do not think I am trying to disrespect any of your opinions. I
believe everyone has a right to voice their concerns no matter what
side they stand on, and everyone should have their concerns/opinions
treated with mutual respect. After all, it's what allows regular folks
like us to get involved with neighborhood affairs.

I find it interesting that you base the mayor's objections to the
Lowes project on the political nature of elections to maintain votes.
I feel the mayor could easily have sided with Lowes which would have
resulted in him bragging about the creation of more job and that it
was good for the city overall. As a matter of fact it may have been
easier from a political standpoint for the mayor to support a Lowes
location in the city of Boston.

I also rarely agree with Rosie Hanlon's views. First, let me say that
I am not trying to bash Rosie Hanlon. She has been a resident of
Brighton for a long time and is proactive with community affairs, but
from attending community meetings I have always felt that Rosie isn't
concerned with the impact local businesses create with the residents
of Allston/Brighton. I have always felt from attending various local A/
B community meetings that Rosie is playing a political game with the
local businesses to make sure they know they have her support. I also
get the sense that she is trying to boost her resume for some future
plan. I understand that having thriving businesses in Allston/
Brighton is very important, but if it comes at the expense of the
community then the concerns of the residents should come first, or we
will continue to have more families moving out of Allston/Brighton.

You said:
" Granted, no one (including myself) looks forward to having congested
streets, but Rosie was correct in stating that whatever gets built on
that site will be large and bring quite a bit of traffic (and, I
mighty add, after the elections, the neighborhood may have less
control over what happens there than we have now)."

First, this is not a correct statement, and its plain and simply a
scare tactic. The neighborhood does have some control over its
affairs. That is why we are proactive by attending meetings with
community members, talking to representatives, and working with other
activists to solve various issues. I'm sure I do not have to remind
you of that.

Second, her opinion about what gets built there will still result in
more traffic is just another scare tactic from her. Depending what
gets built will have different traffic consequences. Rosie is not an
expert in civil engineering or design so her claims are without merit
and based solely on opinion without and facts. The study conducted did
in fact present a factual determination that there would be a dramatic
change to the traffic flow. Are we suppose to believe Rosie's opinions
or a study conducted by professionals? May I remind you that Barry
Controls Corp. who formerly use to occupy the land did not have a
major traffic impact due to the difference in the nature of business.
If the land was used for mixed development, office, or residential
space then it would not have the same amount of vehicles going in and
out of the site every day as would Lowes

You said:
"Rosie was also correct when she noted that Lowe¹s traffic would be
spread-out throughout the day, whereas a big office complex would be
more detrimental because 9-5 workers would clog the streets in rush
hours -- making it harder for A-B residents to commute to work."

This is yet another claim or theory by Rosie that is not based on any
facts or data. The traffic would in fact by spread out during the day
but if you think the impact would be minimum or contained then I
suggest you stand by the entrance of the Home Depot on Arsenal street
in Watertown on weekends or any other busy work hours to get a sense
of the magnitude of increased traffic coming and going. Traffic going
in and out of the parking lot during these periods is 15 - 20 cars
deep in both lanes at every red light. Can you imagine the congestion
that would be created with the already Brighton Center traffic during
weekends or during commute hours? Anyone living in Allston/Brighton
knows that Market St., WashingtonSt, and all other roads leading to
Brighton Center during the commuting times becomes a parking lot.
Where is the data from Rosie to make such statements to back up her
claims?

The point about forcing Lowe’s to hire A/B residents does not hold
much weight. You cannot force a corporation to hire certain people or
who you want. they have a right to hire whomever they feel to do an
adequate job. It would be up to the corporation to make the final
determination in deciding who it hires. I also wonder actually how
many A/B residents would be lining up for jobs there as well.

As far as the convenience factor is concerned about a Lowe’s located
in Brighton we already have Home Depot which is only a half mile away
that provides the same home supplies. Why do we need another store of
that magnitude with the same products?

The problems created far outweight any benefits.

> * A healthy, well-planned neighborhood should have a diversity of uses,

> including some large retail.  It bothers me that A-B has just housing and
> large institutional uses (with some restaurants/bars sprinkled here and
> there).  That limits the number of local jobs and locally available
> merchandise, materials, and services.
>

> * Over 80% (maybe even 90%) of A-B¹s residential structures are 50-70 years

> old and older.  Those old homes require constant updating.  A-B homeowners
> are middle-class people who often work on home improvement projects
> themselves.  It would be very convenient to have a well-supplied
> full-service Home Center in our neighborhood.  Busy, working people would
> find it easier to take care of their homes.
>

> * The cost of gasoline is certain to remain high even when the Iraq war is

[Eva Webster]

On 3/5/08 8:21 AM, "David Evans" <da...@sailonset.com> wrote:
 

> There's businesses and there's businesses. As Mike Moran has stated
> several times, how another world headquarters to jion WGHB, New Balance
> and Newbury Comics? Construction and jobs and taxes, but not 24x7 traffic.

RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE

A development site that is directly adjacent, and long and parallel to the Turnpike will not easily attract a “world headquarters” of anything because such companies can choose bucolic “office parks” in nearby nice suburban rather than being right on the Turnpike.

But the main problem with that wishful thinking approach is that it decimates local blue collar jobs in A-B -- and consequently leads to a huge, and not entirely positive, upheaval in the neighborhood’s character/diversity.  As Kathleen Clifford (most recent poster) pointed out, “The job opportunities that the World Headquarters-type corporations (...) will offer mostly target a level of employees that are not represented in the local population.”  True!

If I wanted to live in a uniformly white-collar community (and our family income certainly makes it possible), I would have moved to Brookline or Newton a long time ago.  Like many people, I like A-B precisely because it is a microcosm of all classes and categories of people.  Residents working towards improving Allston-Brighton North need to honestly figure out if they want a truly diverse neighborhood or not (and diversity does not mean only housing diversity).

David, as the ABCDC Board Member (maybe even the Chairman of the Board now), you have been on record many times stating that A-B needs affordable housing for lower middle-class people (i.e., low and medium wage earners) -- and such housing continues to be built around here (e.g., proposal for Charles View and 1501 Comm. Ave.)

So how can you justify pushing out a project that could employ such people?  Manufacturing is gone from this area; construction people travel from jobs to jobs all over the state (so no need for them to live and raise their families in A-B), while the restaurants, and whatever small retail stores we have, already employ people from as far away as Roxbury (and these are not secure jobs; they pay minimum wage and are not suitable for middle-age people).

So the question I’m presenting to you is this:  If you’re not willing to provide local jobs suitable for the kind of workers that Lowe’s could employ, why does A-B need all that affordable housing (including the one that the CDC wants to build)? Just so its residents have an opportunity to increase our traffic by commuting to work elsewhere?

Further in your message, David, you wrote in reference to the proposed Lowe’s:
 

> Location? There's a big open space between Cleveland Circle and the
> Waterworks. Putting a big box store there would be convenient to Brighton,
> Brookline, Chestnut Hill and Netwon. It's at a major crossroads and near
> two T lines. And save the city or DCR big time on maintenance!

This shows you are out of rational arguments.  You clearly meant it as a jab at me (because I am a green space advocate in the Cleveland Circle area).  My initial reaction was that I should not dignify your lashing out with a response -- but I changed my mind, mostly for the sake of informing anyone who might find your argument remotely persuasive.

It was an ignorant comment because the space between Cleveland Circle and the Waterworks (Cassidy Playground) is a City of Boston park (and not managed by DCR, but the Boston Parks and Recreation Department).  Of all people, you must know how little open space A-B has, and how precious it is to every A-B resident (the kids who play on Cassidy Playground are from all over A-B; and on beautiful weekend days, the Reservoir attracts Allston residents as well — I know it for a fact).

Suggesting that a Home Center should be in Cleveland Circle because of two trolley lines is laughable (just envision groups of people dragging lumber, appliances, or bags of mulch or sand, onto a trolley).  Ditto for suggesting that protected open space in Boston should be used for large retail.  Very irresponsible.  How would you feel if I suggested that Lowe’s should be built in Ringer Park?

The parcel where Lowe’s wants (or wanted) to build a Home Center is zoned as a Local Industrial Subdistrict (I just checked a zoning map).  It’s certainly a better use than a polluting factory, or office park with hundreds of workers (driving from and to their suburban homes during rush hours) who do not benefit A-B in any way.

Lastly, please know that Cleveland Circle is not the kind of traffic “paradise” that you seem to imagine it to be.  Since Chestnut Hill Ave. is an extension of Market Street and intersects with major roads, Cleveland Circle has been actually rated by the BTD as one of the worst traffic spots in the city.

You may think that I am lobbying for Lowe’s because it’s far from where I live — but in reality Cleveland Circle would also be affected by drivers heading for Lowe’s in Allston.  I just think that the convenience and economics of having a Home Center in A-B outweigh the negatives.  We can agree to disagree.

EMW

[Charlie Denison]

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Eva Webster]

Thank you, both Charlie and “ab_resident_72”, for your thoughtful comments in response to my postings regarding Lowe’s.

I think everyone (including Dave) has been making reasonable points.  Each of us can only make educated (more or less) guesses and judgments about aspects and potential consequences of this project -- but there is no doubt in my mind that we all mean well.

Without trying to beat this whole thing to death, let me just clarify a few issues.  After that, let the chips fall where they may -- it’s up to those of you who look after that corner of A-B to decide which medicine you’d rather take.  At least we will have had a thorough, thought-provoking discussion...

Issue No.1 -- Is being afraid of anther proposal warranted or not?

“ab_resident_72” suggested that it is just “scare tactics” to assume that another type of development on that site may be worse than Lowe’s.

I’m not easily frightened, and as an activist I’m inclined to take calculated risks -- but I am honestly and seriously worried that another development there (it will be most likely proposed after the next year’s mayoral elections, and when the market for construction heats up again), may indeed make Lowe’s look better by comparison — only we won’t be able to bring Lowe’s back.  Here is why I think so:

Lowe’s would be just a flat, one or two level structure covering most of the site, with a ground-level parking lot (the latter I hope would have a generous number of shade trees -- we should ALWAYS insist on trees in parking lots to avoid having ugly, sun-baked asphalt deserts).  This is as “low-rise” a development as you can get.

In contrast, after Lowe’s is “kicked out of town”, that site will likely attract, and eventually fall in the hands of some serious, savvy, experienced, well-connected developers -- due to its proximity to Boston and Cambridge, where buildable land is now very scarce.  When that happens, there is no way that we’re going to get a low-rise development!!

Developers will argue that they need substantial height to bring office windows above the Turnpike, to offer better views — and, mark my word, they will push for huge, multi-story buildings, with underground garages for many more cars than what Lowe’s proposes.  (New Balance, if I remember correctly, was built with a 700-car garage; Lowe’s proposes 400 spaces.)

Those future developers will point out to the huge high-rise buildings that BU has built next to the Turnpike, and argue “If BU could go 22-stories high, why can’t we get 15, or 17, or 20?”  

There is a real danger that we’ll have a New Balance-size development multiplied 3 or 4 times (the size of the site would allow that) — and end up with mixed use, office space or bio-tech labs for many hundreds of people, plus retail establishments — and it will make Lowe’s impact pale by comparison.  If you start complaining about traffic then, you’ll be told “this is a city; cities have traffic — but Boston needs economic development”.

I remember it very clearly — when New Balance was proposed, there was no stopping it.  It was trumpeted as being great for Boston — taxes, jobs, etc. (true, of course, but with consequences to Brighton).  We knew that it would worsen traffic on Market Street, but no one could stop that project, or make it smaller.  Those developers had gotten decision makers in City Hall on board before the neighborhood had any chance to weigh in.

An IAG was put in place (with Rosie in it, of course — somehow she is always appointed to those IAGs), and that was it.  Right now, there is no way to even find out if, where, and how the NB community benefits, especially those concerning Market Street traffic mitigation, materialized.  (When I asked Rosie about those benefits some years ago, she took umbrage with me just for asking.  But what the heck — that was a huge development — why can’t we know what if anything the neighborhood got out of it?)  

So based on that New Balance experience, what makes anyone in A-B North now think that you will have more control when a larger version of the New Balance development is proposed in a year or two -- and promising to make more money than Lowe’s for the current owner, the City, and the developers?  Everyone will be “laughing all the way to the bank” -- except us, the residents.

I do not mean to be a “fear-monger”, but want to impress on you guys that the sheer size of this site, much bigger than New Balance, makes it quite dangerous to the neighborhood in terms of impacts.  If I lived in A-B North, I’d much rather go with the devil I know (Lowe’s) -- and try to mitigate/neutralize its negative impacts in a politically favorable climate that we have right now — than to deal with a bigger and more powerful “devil” down the road, in a less favorable political climate.  When the real estate market turns in late 2009, as is predicted”, a development feeding frenzy will erupt — and good luck to the neighborhood dealing with this site then.

High-rise developments are very insidious because they have a way of spreading, and cumulatively increasing congestion.  A-B North is very vulnerable to that.


Issue No. 2 — The difference between Home Depot and Lowe’s

“ab_resident_72”observed that traffic associated with Home Depot in Watertown gets quite heavy at certain times, and many cars are lined up trying to get to the Home Depot parking lot, or out of it onto Arsenal Street.

This is true, but you need to remember that Home Depot is not there on its own — there is also “Bugaboo Creek”, Linen & Things, “Ruby Tuesdays” (or “TG Fridays” — I always confuse those two), plus much spill-off traffic from the Arsenal Mall, which has many stores.  I know that from experience because my husband and I like to eat at Bugaboo Creek, and I shop at the Arsenal Mall -- and we park behind Home Depot even when we have no reason to go to Home Depot.

Another aspect that makes traffic near that Home Depot particularly bad is that the only way to get to and out of that parking lot is through Arsenal Street, which has yet another mall across the street (the Watertown Mall) -- and Arsenal Street is a major transportation route to Watertown and Waltham.

In contrast, Lowe’s in A-B would be just by itself, and vehicles would be approaching it, and dispersing in three directions — towards Market, North Beacon, and Everett Streets.

Also, the neighborhood could ask the BRA to execute an agreement with Lowe’s guaranteeing a route (and the least objectionable timing) of deliveries via Guest Street (and Soldiers Field Road), so as not to cause disruption to people who live on Market, North Beacon, and Everett.


Issue No. 3 — Is it a duplication to have Lowe’s not too far from Home Depot in Watertown?

Certainly, much less than having Stop and Shop and Shaw’s back to back to each other — and yet both seem to be making it.  If you had only one, their parking lot would have twice as many cars.  So that Home Depot in Watertown would take some pressure off Lowe’s.

My sense is that Home Depot has higher prices than Lowe’s on some items, and many things that Home Depot does not carry, Lowe’s does, and vice versa.


Issue No. 4 — Would Lowe’s run smaller hardware stores out of business?

I don’t think they would go out of business, but they would probably need to find a niche by offering items and selections that Lowe’s does not carry -- and they could compete with better personal service and capitalize on the loyalty of old customers.

Also, those smaller hardware stores don’t have room to sell big items like Lowe’s — and it’s the customers’ convenience and access to those big-ticket items that is the point here.


Issue No. 5 — Blue collar vs. white collar jobs in A-B.

Charlie wrote:
“I do not see an overabundance of white-collar jobs in Brighton.  In fact, I see quite the opposite.  It seems to me that most businesses in Brighton are providing retail, restaurant, and service jobs more than anything else, with the exception of WGBH, New Balance, and a few others.”

I think you forgot thousands of white collar and/or high-skilled jobs that are in education (from large colleges/universities, to a number of public and private schools for kids all ages), and in healthcare (St. Elizabeth’s, Franciscan Children Hospital, Brighton Marine, dentists/doctors in private practice), and professions such as lawyers, engineers, architects, clergy, real estate, bankers, and other business people.

I believe there are more white collar jobs in A-B than blue collar.  And the point I was making is that white collar people are employed based on their educational and professional achievement — and since they make more money, they also have greater mobility, and can afford commuting by car.  Blue collar people with limited skills (or just retirees in need of extra income), do not have many choices in A-B and have to watch every buck they spend (including transportation).  Lowe’s provides training, would be local, and you don’t need any degrees to work there.


Issue No. 6 — Can Lowe’s be asked to hire from A-B?

“ab_resident_72” wrote:
“The point about forcing Lowe’s to hire A/B residents does not hold

much weight. You cannot force a corporation to hire certain people or
who you want. they have a right to hire whomever they feel to do an
adequate job. It would be up to the corporation to make the final
determination in deciding who it hires. I also wonder actually how

many A/B residents would be lining up for jobs there as well.”

This is an incorrect conclusion.  You could not ask a corporation to hire white collar people from a certain geographic area (because, naturally, residence status is not the criterion that matters to employers who need highly educated and skilled people).  You also cannot ask a developer of an office or retail complex to promise that the companies that will move into that complex will hire locally.

However, since Lowe’s provides employee training, and equally important, Lowe’s would be both the developer of the site AND the employer, they could be required by the BRA to hire locally.  That agreement could stipulate that Lowe’s jobs in the new location be filled with the help of the Vocational Advancement Center (located on North Beacon Street) or the Allston-Brighton CDC.

The agreement could also have a clause stipulating that only residents who have lived in Allston-Brighton for at least 3 years (for example) would qualify; and if no A-B resident was interested in a job with Lowe’s, the company could fill the position with someone from outside of A-B.


Issue No. 7 – Other benefits

Lowe’s could be asked to pay for meaningful traffic mitigation and substantial beautification as part of the approval process.

Additionally, I think it would be beneficial to have a company like that in A-B because as purveyors of construction and landscaping materials (including trees and shrubs), they could be persuaded to donate surpluses of such things for community projects in future years; their parking lot could be used for some large community events (e.g. a flea market); they could offer classes to do-it-yourselfers, etc.


Thanks for your patience reading this long message.  Hope you will take all of this into consideration when you decide how to proceed.  I just want the best for all of us who live here.  I find a potential large high-rise complex (with multiple uses and companies involved) more threatening to traffic, and less beneficial to the neighborhood than Lowe’s.

Eva

 

[David Evans]

Eva,

Let me reply to a couple of your many points; others have answered others.

> David, as the ABCDC Board Member (maybe even the Chairman of the Board
> now), you have been on record many times stating that A-B needs
> affordable housing for lower middle-class people (i.e., low and medium
> wage earners) -- and such housing continues to be built around here
> (e.g., proposal for Charles View and 1501 Comm. Ave.)

For the record, the CDC has nothing to do with Charlesview, which has
existed since the destruction of Barry's Corner in the early days of Urban
Renewal.

Affordable housing is needed in A-B, but that doesn't mean that all
"blue-collar" jobs must be in A-B. People like to live here; they don't
have to work here. (Although better transit might make this more
"workable." There are many jobs in Boston that do not pay wages to support
the purchase (or rental) of market-rate dwellings. You have supported
diversity in many of your comments; it can't happen with only market-rate
housing, IMHO.

> In contrast, Lowe’s in A-B would be just by itself, and vehicles would
> be approaching it, and dispersing in three directions — towards Market,
> North Beacon, and Everett Streets.

QED! The last three streets are exactly those already beyond capacity.

> Also, the neighborhood could ask the BRA to execute an agreement with
> Lowe’s guaranteeing a route (and the least objectionable timing) of
> deliveries via Guest Street (and Soldiers Field Road), so as not to
> cause disruption to people who live on Market, North Beacon, and Everett.

Amazingly enough, the traffic plan included all of this. Although not the
use of Soldiers Field Road, which is closed to commercial vehicles. I hope
you wouldn't want that changed!

That said, a simple test of traffic "guarantees" would be to watch the
entrance to Stop & Shop form the Everett St. bridge. It has only one
allowable use: a right turn off the bridge. Almost every time I cross the
bridge, someone is entering or exiting illegally.

dge

[ab_resi...@hotmail.com]

Eva,
I must admit you raise some very good points. I also agree about the
point you make concerning the 'devil you know' vs. 'the devel you
don't'.

I just want to comment on one of the points you make concerning a
developer coming in and bullying the community. Again, you are
absolutely correct about your concerns, but when/if the time comes
when a developer decides to build something (whatever it may be), and
it proves to be detrimental to the neighborhood or it comes at the
neighborhhood's expense, then we as residents of Allston/Brighton MUST
hold our representative's feet (Ciommo, Moran, Tolman, Honan,etc) to
the fire and have them do what's right for the community. I understand
NB came in and did as they saw fit, but I am seeing a lot more
community involvement lately as a result of some of the other issues
concerning A/B (BC's IMP, the CharlesView/Harvard landswap, Lowes,
rowdy students living in neighborhoods, etc) and the residents should
ot back down down!

We do have a say.

[Nathan Spencer]

Thank you Charlie. You have really nailed it. I'm not responding in light of Eva's comments. I'm responding because those points are exactly right on.

Brighton is at a point of great opportunity. We can do so much if we just accept and welcome the wave. We have log fought being the commuter community, but it has happened anyway. A great number of small businesses (contractor, plumbers, landscapers, etc) are all based here and go to other communities every morning.

We can do so much more to make our neighborhood welcoming and the type of place business of many collars would feel comfortable in. We can work to make young post-grads feel like this is their community, rather than just the last affordable stop on the T.

Thank you Charlie for your words, as a young professional in Brighton who is trying to make this my home, you're right on!

Nathan Spencer


Nathan Spencer
(617) 653-7085
Nathan_...@hotmail.com

Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry



-----Original Message-----
From: cden...@comcast.net (Charlie Denison)

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:41:05
To:Eva Webster <evawe...@comcast.net>
Cc:AllstonBrighton2006 <AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [AB2006] Re: Lowes Home Center ~ please reconsider opposition

Eva,

I appreciate your passion for A-B, and I'm glad you care so deeply to make it a place for all people. However, I have some issues with some of your arguments.

You say that you are unconvinced that businesses will want to locate their headquarters along the Turnpike in Brighton and would instead choose an office park. What about business that would like to locate in downtown Boston, where office space has recently hit a record $100 per square foot due to such high demand? I think Brighton has an opportunity here to market itself as a great location to do business, convenient to the city without the high cost of locating downtown. There are a lot of people who live in the metro area who don't want to drive out to 128, and in many cases would love to work somewhere where they have the option of taking mass transit to get to work, which Brighton provides.

I totally agree that the diversity (economic, racial, educational, etc) of A-B is one it's greatest strengths. However, I do not see an overabundance of white-collar jobs in Brighton. In fact, I see quite the opposite. It seems to me that most businesses in Brighton are providing retail, restaurant, and service jobs more than anything else, with the exception of
WGBH, New Balance, and a few others. Attracting a Lowes, would in my view, actually harm the local businesses and would merely provide similar or lower paying jobs. What would happen to the few remaining local hardware stores?

I also disagree that Brighton does not have many white collar workers. I see many people commuting to Cambridge, Boston, and elsewhere from Brighton to work office jobs, especially those recently out of college. There is an opportunity to keep young people in Brighton by providing jobs nearby. There is a great opportunity here to retain these young people as long-term residents and encourage them to stay and eventually raise families in Brighton.

In essence, I agree with your goals, but I think you're overstating your case. Of course it's important to have a variety of jobs and job types for all people of Brighton. However, I believe there are much better ways to ensure this happens than by inviting in a big-box home improvement store.

Charlie

-------------- Original message ----------------------

[joh...@comcast.net]

There are 3 hardware stores in the area. They are located in Allston,
Watertown and Newton. They do not worry about HD or Lowes. They have
loyal customers and have a niche in the neighborhood. Lowes caters to
the home owner while HD caters to the contractor. No matter what goes
in this location, people will drive to get there because you can't get
there without taking more than one bus.
John

On Mar 5, 11:41 pm, cdeni...@comcast.net (Charlie Denison) wrote:
> Eva,
>
> I appreciate your passion for A-B, and I'm glad you care so deeply to make it a place for all people.  However, I have some issues with some of your arguments.
>
> You say that you are unconvinced that businesses will want to locate their headquarters along the Turnpike in Brighton and would instead choose an office park.  What about business that would like to locate in downtown Boston, where office space has recently hit a record $100 per square foot due to such high demand?  I think Brighton has an opportunity here to market itself as a great location to do business, convenient to the city without the high cost of locating downtown.  There are a lot of people who live in the metro area who don't want to drive out to 128, and in many cases would love to work somewhere where they have the option of taking mass transit to get to work, which Brighton provides.
>
> I totally agree that the diversity (economic, racial, educational, etc) of A-B is one it's greatest strengths.  However, I do not see an overabundance of white-collar jobs in Brighton.  In fact, I see quite the opposite.  It seems to me that most businesses in Brighton are providing retail, restaurant, and service jobs more than anything else, with the exception of
> WGBH, New Balance, and a few others.  Attracting a Lowes, would in my view, actually harm the local businesses and would merely provide similar or lower paying jobs.  What would happen to the few remaining local hardware stores?
>
> I also disagree that Brighton does not have many white collar workers.  I see many people commuting to Cambridge, Boston, and elsewhere from Brighton to work office jobs, especially those recently out of college.  There is an opportunity to keep young people in Brighton by providing jobs nearby.  There is a great opportunity here to retain these young people as long-term residents and encourage them to stay and eventually raise families in Brighton.
>
> In essence, I agree with your goals, but I think you're overstating your case.  Of course it's important to have a variety of jobs and job types for all people of Brighton.  However, I believe there are much better ways to ensure this happens than by inviting in a big-box home improvement store.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------

> From: Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net>

> [ Attached Message ]From:Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net>To:Dave Evans <d...@sailonset.com>, AllstonBrighton2006 <AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com>Date:Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:22:04 +0000Local:Wed, Mar 5 2008 7:22 pmSubject:[AB2006] Re: Lowes Home Center ~ please reconsider opposition

>
> On 3/5/08 8:21 AM, "David Evans" <da...@sailonset.com> wrote:
>  > There's businesses and there's businesses. As Mike Moran has stated
> > several times, how another world headquarters to jion WGHB, New Balance
> > and Newbury Comics? Construction and jobs and taxes, but not 24x7 traffic.
> RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE
> A development site that is directly adjacent, and long and parallel to the Turnpike will not easily attract a “world headquarters” of anything because such companies can choose bucolic “office parks” in nearby nice suburban rather than being right on the Turnpike.
> But the main problem with that wishful thinking approach is that it decimates local blue collar jobs in A-B -- and consequently leads to a huge, and not entirely positive, upheaval in the neighborhood’s character/diversity.  As Kathleen Clifford (most recent poster) pointed out, “The job opportunities that the World Headquarters-type corporations (...) will offer mostly target a level of employees that are not represented in the local population.”  True!
> If I wanted to live in a uniformly white-collar community (and our family income certainly makes it possible), I would have moved to Brookline or Newton a long time ago.  Like many people, I like A-B precisely because it is a microcosm of all classes and categories of people.  Residents working towards improving Allston-Brighton North need to honestly figure out if they want a truly diverse neighborhood or not (and diversity does not mean only housing diversity).
> David, as the ABCDC Board Member (maybe even the Chairman of the Board now), you have been on record many times stating that A-B needs affordable housing for lower middle-class people (i.e., low and medium wage earners) -- and such housing continues to be built around here (e.g., proposal for Charles View and 1501 Comm. Ave.)

> So how can you justify pushing out a project that could employ such people?  Manufacturing is gone from this area; construction people travel from jobs to jobs all over the state (so no need for them to live and raise their families in A-B), while the restaurants, and whatever small retail stores we have, already employ people from as far away as Roxbury (and these are not secure jobs; they pay minimum wage and are not suitable for middle-age people).So the question I’m presenting to you is this:  If you’re not willing to provide local jobs suitable for the kind of workers that Lowe’s could employ, why does A-B need all that affordable housing (including the one that the CDC wants to build)?Just so its residents have an opportunity to increase our traffic by commuting to work elsewhere?

> Further in your message, David, you wrote in reference to the proposed Lowe’s:
>  > Location? There's a big open space between Cleveland Circle and the
> > Waterworks. Putting a big box store there would be convenient to Brighton,
> > Brookline, Chestnut Hill and Netwon. It's at a major crossroads and near

> > two T lines. And save the city or DCR big time on maintenance!This shows you are out of rational arguments.  You clearly meant it as a jab at me (because I am a green space advocate in the Cleveland Circle area).  My initial reaction was that I should not dignify your lashing out with a response -- but I changed my mind, mostly for the sake of informing anyone who might find your argument remotely persuasive.

> It was an ignorant comment because the space between Cleveland Circle and the Waterworks (Cassidy Playground) is a City of Boston park (and not managed by DCR, but the Boston Parks and Recreation Department).  Of all people, you must know how little open space A-B has, and how precious it is to every A-B resident (the kids who play on Cassidy Playground are from all over A-B; and on beautiful weekend days, the Reservoir attracts Allston residents as well — I know it for a fact).
> Suggesting that a Home Center should be in Cleveland Circle because of two trolley lines is laughable (just envision groups of people dragging lumber, appliances, or bags of mulch or sand, onto a trolley).  Ditto for suggesting that protected open space in Boston should be used for large retail.  Very irresponsible.  How would you feel if I suggested that Lowe’s should be built in Ringer Park?
> The parcel where Lowe’s wants (or wanted) to build a Home Center is zoned as a Local Industrial Subdistrict (I just checked a zoning map).  It’s certainly a better use than a polluting factory, or office park with hundreds of workers (driving from and to their suburban homes during rush hours) who do not benefit A-B in any way.
> Lastly, please know that Cleveland Circle is not the kind of traffic “paradise” that you seem to imagine it to be.  Since Chestnut Hill Ave. is an extension of Market Street and intersects with major roads, Cleveland Circle has been actually rated by the BTD as one of the worst traffic spots in the city.
> You may think that I am lobbying for Lowe’s because it’s far from where I live — but in reality Cleveland Circle would also be affected by drivers heading for Lowe’s in Allston.  I just think that the convenience and economics of having a Home Center in A-B outweigh the negatives.  We can agree to disagree.
> EMW
> >

[Eva Webster]

On 3/6/08 12:19 PM, "ab_resi...@hotmail.com" <ab_resi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Eva,
> I must admit you raise some very good points. I also agree about the
> point you make concerning the 'devil you know' vs. 'the devel you
> don't'.
>
> I just want to comment on one of the points you make concerning a
> developer coming in and bullying the community. Again, you are
> absolutely correct about your concerns, but when/if the time comes
> when a developer decides to build something (whatever it may be), and
> it proves to be detrimental to the neighborhood or it comes at the
> neighborhhood's expense, then we as residents of Allston/Brighton MUST
> hold our representative's feet (Ciommo, Moran, Tolman, Honan,etc) to
> the fire and have them do what's right for the community. I understand
> NB came in and did as they saw fit, but I am seeing a lot more
> community involvement lately as a result of some of the other issues
> concerning A/B (BC's IMP, the CharlesView/Harvard landswap, Lowes,
> rowdy students living in neighborhoods, etc)  and the residents should

> not back down down!

>
> We do have a say.

Dear “ab_resident_72”:
(I think I know who you are, but will keep it to myself — I think that everyone has a right to post incognito.)

Your belief that our neighborhood activism can save us from big development in A-B North strikes me as very naïve (I don’t mean it in an offensive way — I just can’t find a better word).

Our city councilor, state reps, and senator are not running the BRA — and their ability to impact large development is very limited.  The BRA is an autonomous agency that, by its very structure and purpose, is “joint at the hip” with developer interests.  Did you know that the BRA actually sustains itself from development fees, and that their Board is dominated by people who represent construction unions, etc.

After a few “lean” years in real estate development (as we have now), those unions will be like hungry beasts.  The Chamber of Commerce, and the Real Estate people stuck with lots of unsold units will also push for jobs creation in Boston to move the real estate inventory and create a climate for new development.  And the Barry Control site (is that the name?) will be sitting there like a duck — perfect for a large swoop!

The mayor (whoever that person is) can control the BRA’s decisions — but no mayor, except right before the elections, will be making large development decisions based on the need to protect low density in Allston –- in my humble opinion.  Allston (or A-B North) is viewed as too important to the City’s economic development, and overall it already has a relatively weak residential fabric (low owner-occupancy, and low voters rate).

I once analyzed returns in mayoral elections, and the neighborhoods that truly matter are places like West Roxbury, South Boston, Roslindale, Oak Square (anywhere where there is a healthy neighborhood with lots of owner-occupants in free-standing homes), but A-B North is not in that category.  Of course, every place is important when there is a possibility of a tight race, but after the elections, political and economic considerations start weighing more heavily — and the winds start shifting.

If you think, for example, that any of our local elected officials would be in danger of losing his re-election just because he was unable to prevent a humongous development on the Barry’s Controls site -- you are wrong.  Voters in others parts of A-B would not be inclined to punish an elected official if he helps them with issues that are closer to them than that site.

If the traffic slowly becomes more and more gridlocked from addition of large buildings in A-B North, A-B voters are not going to think “Gee, I need to make sure that Ciommo (or Moran, or Honan, or Tolman) doesn’t get re-elected”.  Most will want them to stay in office to capitalize on the existing relationship with other issues.

So I say — WAKE UP guys.  Have a serious conversation about Lowe’s, and how it can be made to work for the neighborhood, while you still can.

Eva

[edperl...@aol.com]

I wish the city, the BRA and all of us collectively could think outside the circle.

 

Why Lowes? Who really needs another chain store anyway?

 

Why not convert Barry Controls into a unique manufacturing facility, housing manufacturing thinktanks, small startup manufacturing operations of all kinds, a "Center of Manufacturing Innovation," if you will. The shell and general infrastructure is there; it need not be destroyed to be rebuilt. Manufacturing still exists, believe it or not. I work at a manufacturing facility in West Roxbury; we employ 220 skilled and moderately-skilled employees working 24/5 and we actually make things. Right in the city limits of our fair city, along the banks of the Charles. Not in China, or Brazil, or India. It's a breath of fresh air to be part of a manufacturing process and sadly this scenario is becoming increasingly rare.

Let's change it.

And what of the shuttered CompUSA store at North Beacon and Market? Again, think outside the circle. I've heard Trader Joe's, to which I say, we can do better. Let's turn that space into a year-round Farmers Market, not to compete with Whole Foods (no can do), but rather to feature and sell the goods and produce from Massachusetts and New England farmers and producers. Let's work toward living differently, using the sustainable model as an approach. Who wants to help me with that one?

Just a few random thoughts after reading the verbal volley surrounding Lowes. Like the Art Museum Harvard wanted to build in Barry's Corner in Allston, Lowes was the wrong idea in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am pleased and amazed that the Mayor and his cronies actually figured this one out.

Perhaps we can change...


Ed Perlmutter
17 Bellamy Street
Brighton
617 710 2629

[Eva Webster]

Dave’s quotes are in blue and indented; my comments are in black.

On 3/6/08 10:26 AM, "David Evans" <da...@sailonset.com> wrote:

> For the record, the CDC has nothing to do with Charlesview, which has
> existed since the destruction of Barry's Corner in the early days of Urban
> Renewal.

I know that, and I didn’t say anywhere that the CDC has something to do with Charlesview.  

> Affordable housing is needed in A-B, but that doesn't mean that all
> "blue-collar" jobs must be in A-B. People like to live here; they don't
> have to work here.

Likewise, I didn’t say that all blue collar jobs must be in A-B (that’s an impossibility).  My rationale is that from the planning standpoint, adding hundreds of affordable units to A-B, knowing very well that these people will have to work elsewhere (because local blue collar jobs are taken, and we do not welcome companies that could create more), has traffic consequences as well.

> The last three streets [Market, North Beacon, and Everett Streets] are exactly those already beyond capacity.

I do not know how you define “capacity”, but agree that traffic is hefty in that area (particularly during rush hours) -- though I still would rather drive there than downtown Boston or parts of Cambridge.

It is kind of silly that we seem to be arguing — because I do not dispute your claim that traffic IS a problem.

But the difference between us is that you seem to believe that the neighborhood can prevent increases in traffic by torpedoing development such as Lowe’s (which I think would have lesser impacts than mega-square-footage, multi-story buildings that can later go there instead) -- while I believe that just as downtown Boston could not be protected from dense traffic-increasing development, A-B North with its large buildable parcels cannot entirely avoid similar fate.  It’s only a matter of time.

In general, our fate was sealed when Brighton let itself be annexed by Boston — and Allston in particular is paying a big price now in terms of heavy urbanization because of the large developable, previously industrial, swaths of land that you have over there.   None of those large parcels have protective, low-density zoning, and no politicians, including the mayor who needs to be watching for the City’s bottom line, can prevent dense development on them.

It appears that the BRA is prepared to keep development on smaller parcels reasonable in size, but the really big parcels attract big, deep-pocketed developers, and are a different story — no zoning rules apply to those parcels, and very large, tall, dense uses are actually encouraged.  The City benefits in multiple ways, including “linkage”.

So I think it would be better for us to pick a low-rise use like Lowe’s that covers a lot of area, is tucked away near the Turnpike, and has some benefits to the entire neighborhood (and figure out traffic mitigation).  If you don’t believe me that such use is better, just try to imagine traffic impacts if the Stop & Shop site with its parking lot were to become dense, multi-story development.

Will Charlesview cause less traffic than K-mart? — I don’t think so.  Now imagine, hypothetically, that Petco, and Shaw’s, and Stop & Shop sites get developed vertically towards the sky — what would that do?

Those big stores are like “land banks”, and if you can make any such use permanent around here (Lowe’s), I think we are actually better off — because it dilutes our density.  

 

>> Also, the neighborhood could ask the BRA to execute an agreement with
>> Lowe's guaranteeing a route (and the least objectionable timing) of
>> deliveries via Guest Street (and Soldiers Field Road), so as not to
>> cause disruption to people who live on Market, North Beacon, and Everett.
>
> Amazingly enough, the traffic plan included all of this. Although not the
> use of Soldiers Field Road, which is closed to commercial vehicles. I hope
> you wouldn't want that changed!

I did not know that Soldiers Field Rd. is closed to commercial traffic, and don't know why that is the case (maybe someone can enlighten me) since it is a very efficient roadway that does not intersect with residential streets (to the best of my knowledge).

It makes more sense to have Soldiers Field Road allow delivery trucks than Western Ave. for example -- and yet Shaw's must be getting their deliveries through Western Ave., Everett Street, or some other street close to people’s homes.

The point I was making is that it would be possible to have deliveries to Lowe’s through major, non-residential roads and via Guest Street.  Also, the trucks that those big retailers use have huge cubic footage inside to minimize the frequency of deliveries.  (I drove by Home Depot in Watertown dozens and dozens of time, and have never even seen a Home Depot, or Target, or Best Buy delivery truck.)

> That said, a simple test of traffic "guarantees" would be to watch the
> entrance to Stop & Shop form the Everett St. bridge. It has only one
> allowable use: a right turn off the bridge. Almost every time I cross the
> bridge, someone is entering or exiting illegally.

I don’t understand this argument.  All it means is that a left turn (coming from North Beacon) is badly needed there.  It’s a bad traffic design.  Of course people will make an illegal turn there; they have no choice — unless you want to waste time and gas driving in giant loops around the neighborhood.  

Also, why force people who need to get from that parking lot to Western Avenue go in the opposite direction and needlessly contribute to traffic on North Beacon and Market Street?  When Stop & Shop was proposed someone should have pointed it out.  You cannot single-mindedly protect one street (Everett), and ultimately in vain, without making things worse on those other streets.

Eva

[David Evans]

Ed,
Several years ago, when New Balance wanted to develop the N.
Beacon/Everett site into housing (not including the "headhouse" at 61 N.
Beacon), one of the City's objections was the loss of potential small
business locations. (The nine-story design didn't help either!)

There is a City/BRA Back Streets Program that tries to foster or maintain
exactly what you are suggesting. My guess is that there is a lack of
funding (something tells me that Barry Controls wants a lot for that
site). I don't know how many small businesses are looking for an
"incubator," but they are a fine addition to a community and the economy.

dge

[ab_resi...@hotmail.com]

Eva,
I am honestly saddened by some of your comments concerning the nature
of the political process concerning our local representatives. Forgive
me for getting off topic but I fell strongly that one of the reason
places like South Boston and West Roxbury have such political punch is
because of the fact that those communities are very involved with
their local affairs, and if the local politicains want to keep their
jobs they must listen to the concerns of the local neighborhood.

I will give you a perfect example of how a community can greatly
determine what is developed and what is not. Do you remember when
Robert Kraft wanted to build the new Patriots stadium on the
waterfront in South Boston? The locals in Southie did not want it
there even though I have heard through many political resources that
city officials and businesses DID want the stadium there. Why do you
think the stadium was never built there even though it was shown that
it would bring many jobs and resources to the area? I'll tell you why
- because the locals told their local reps that they did not want it
there...and the reps listened!

I have always felt that power comes from the people, but unfortunately
many of the residents in A/B are not proactive.


On Mar 6, 4:50 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/6/08 12:19 PM, "ab_resident...@hotmail.com"

> Eva- Hide quoted text -

[John Robert Powers]

Ab,

I'm not sure that's exactly correct! I think you might find, that when the
Pat's as well as the Sox thought about Southie, the local political climate
expected more than any smart business person was willing to give and that
wasn't necessarily the will of the people. There was no compromise and with
that Kraft and McCourt decided on plan B!

Having said that, If I were to wake up tomorrow and found I had a
representative or senator with the clout and chutzpah that Southie enjoyed,
I'd be a happy camper!

JRP

-----Original Message-----
From: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
ab_resi...@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:02 AM
To: AllstonBrighton2006
Subject: [AB2006] Re: Lowes Home Center ~ please reconsider opposition

[Eva Webster]

On 3/6/08 5:10 PM, "edperl...@aol.com" <edperl...@aol.com> wrote:

“Why not convert Barry Controls into a unique manufacturing facility, housing manufacturing thinktanks, small startup manufacturing operations of all kinds, a "Center of Manufacturing Innovation," if you will.  The shell and general infrastructure is there; it need not be destroyed to be rebuilt.”

I’m all for out-of-the-box thinking and bold ideas, and also bemoan the deepening loss of the manufacturing base in the US -- so I just hate to dash your well-meant hopes for the Barry Controls site.  

However, you may be unaware of the realities of the real estate market — namely, how the value of the Barry Controls land has skyrocketed as a result of the tall and massive New Balance development right next to it, and also as a consequence of all the anticipated Harvard development in Allston.

The value of land depends on what’s around it (or being planned), and that value in turn predetermines what gets built on it.  

I don’t know the name of the entity that owns Barry Controls, but I am certain that they will not be making decisions on how the site should be re-used/developed with an intention of retaining a manufacturing facility at any cost.  They’d be shooting themselves in the foot financially by thinking that way.

They will want to get the highest return -- and New Balance will be the yardstick by which development potential of this site will be measured.  Manufacturing doesn’t stand a chance.  There is a reason why manufacturing facilities are always relegated to areas where land is inexpensive -- and the times of cheap land in Allston are over.

You also wrote:

“Lowes was the wrong idea in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am pleased and amazed that the Mayor and his cronies actually figured this one out.”

I, on the other hand, have an uneasy feeling that Lowe’s could have been sunk precisely because someone has figured out that a larger, taller, more valuable development (in terms of profits to the investors and tax revenue to the City) can be built there.

I just looked at a satellite map -- you can easily fit three New Balance-size buildings on that site.

Sadly, I predict that by opposing Lowe’s the neighborhood might have shot itself in the foot.  Lowe’s would be useful to neighborhood residents, but the steel-and-glass corporate high-rises will be in a different universe, and have no connection to our lives.

EMW

[ab_resi...@hotmail.com]

Eva,
I'm going to have to disagree with your opinion that A/B may have shot
themselves in the foot and I will tell you why. I was traveling up
Washington Street last night around 5:30pm after returning from work.
I was stuck in traffic that spanned from Fairbanks Street (near Oak
Square) all the way to the intersection of Washington/Foster Street. I
refer only up to the corner of Washington/Foster because I went into
CVS even though there was even more significant traffic in Brighton
Center. It took me over 10 minutes to travel what usually takes 60-90
seconds during non-rush hour times. I mention this because I began to
think about this debate and thought the impact Lowes would create on
our lives in Brighton. Now I know you are going to say that every city
faces longer travel times during rush hour commutes but I want to
point out a few things:

1. The traffic generated from a Lowes would only increase the traffic
times leading into and out of Brighton center becasue it would
increase the time and magnitude of traffic in Brighton.

2. This would mean that residents would have to plan around, or not
take the shortest route to and from their homes in or around Brighton
Center where many go to and from every day. Basically this would
decrease the quality of life for residents. Agian, I stress that If
you want to see a preview of things to come if Lowes were to be
located in Brighton just try driving through Washington, Market, or
other main streets leading to or around Brighton Center during these
high traffic hours.

Therefore I actually believe that even if some sort of office park or
building complex goes up it would not create the same magnitude of
problems as would Lowes. You mention that having a "steel-and-glass
corporate high rise" would have no connection to our lives, but the
bigger fear is the deterimental " connection" a Lowes would in fact
have on our lives.



On Mar 7, 12:10 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:

[Mike Greene]

In my opinion the additional traffic problems created with a Lowes or large transient traffic big store at that location will probably adversely affect
the small businesses in Brighton Center. I know that as more students are added to the local universities, and construction projects etc. have squeezed traffic lanes, I for one attempt to avoid traveling through Brighton Center. This could be a problem for these small businesses as the traffic problems go unabated or are increased. I am all for additional businesses, restaurants and retail for the betterment of our town, with proper planning. In the past the BRA and the City did not appear to have a well defined master plan for Allston / Brighton, however it now seems the continued efforts of all the groups around have been able to impress upon these entities there are a lot of concerned, active residents in A/B.
Bravo !!
They finally have at least acknowledged our/your input. This forum for the flow of ideas is healthy and informative. On a related question is there a current local or BRA master plan or planning document for A/B available for viewing?

Michael Greene

-----Original Message-----
From: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ab_resi...@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 2:13 PM
To: AllstonBrighton2006
Subject: [AB2006] Re: Lowes Home Center ~ please reconsider opposition

[Eva Webster]

On 3/7/08 10:01 AM, "ab_resi...@hotmail.com" <ab_resi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Eva,
> I am honestly saddened by some of your comments concerning the nature
> of the political process concerning our local representatives.

Hey, hey, hey!  I wish you were more careful with the words you use — because that sentence insinuates that I am unhappy with our local representatives, which couldn’t be farther from the truth.  All my activist life (many years now), I found them responsive, caring, and working hard for the neighborhood within the highly imperfect system that we have.

My critique was concerning the system — not the individuals.  Our elected officials’ power and effectiveness on development issues are often constrained by conflicting interests that factor into these things:  pro-development vs. anti-development; “we want to be a suburb” vs. “we want to be a big city”; the donor class vs. the local base.  Add to that that our elected officials actually don’t control development in Boston (only the Mayor does — and even he cannot be unmoved by developer interests), and you see that you’re expecting more than our local representaitves may be able to realistically deliver on some issues.

I understand that you are saddened by a dose of reality coming from me -- sorry for that, but I’m just not as inclined as you are to view things through rose-colored glasses (i.e., that as long as residents bombard our local representatives with demands, A-B North will be safe from large development).  

A-B elected officials may score occasional wins for the neighborhood on development issues, but they cannot score those wins consistently all the time — and the bigger the project, the harder (or sometimes downright impossible) it is for them to interfere with the BRA’s decisions.  

It’s really simple: if local politicians made those decisions nothing of substance would ever get built in the city because there are always locals who oppose it.  So the system has been designed in a way that prevents that.  Our City charter assures that.

The suburbs have a different mode of government (for example, in Newton which is also a city headed by a mayor, the Aldermen have more power on development issues than our City Council — so Newton residents do not run to their state senator asking her to intervene with the mayor).

 

> I will give you a perfect example of how a community can greatly determine
> what is developed and what is not. Do you remember when Robert Kraft wanted to

> build the new Patriots stadium on the waterfront in South Boston?  (...)  Why

> do you think the stadium was never built there even though it was shown that
> it would bring many jobs and resources to the area? I'll tell you why -
> because the locals told their local reps that they did not want it there...and
> the reps listened!

I think the No. 1 reason that stadium was not built was because of the close brother-like friendship that the late South Boston Councilor Jimmy Kelly had with Mayor Menino.  South Boston residents didn’t even have to fight hard against that stadium.  If Jim Kelly personally didn’t want it, it wasn’t going to happen.  In return, the Mayor could be certain that South Boston would always vote for him.

Also, remember that South Boston had at that time -- and still does to a large extent -- the kind of cohesive, almost clan-like unity among residents that A-B does not have.  Our greater ethnic diversity (and diminished/splintered religious life that keeps various segments of local population socially separate) have actually weakened our political power.

Last but not least, A-B’s political clout has been destroyed by a huge amount of rental housing, mostly filled with transient population that does not get involved in local politics, which translates to lower and unpredictable voter turnout.  Even long-term renters are mostly absent from local politics and activism -- because they lack the main reason people get involved: a financial stake in their immediate surroundings.

With that Patriots stadium, you gave me an example of successful community opposition, but there are many more instances when such opposition did not succeed.

The Columbus Center in the South End, for example.  People over there were fighting with everything they had for years, and couldn’t stop it — even though traffic over there is even worse than A-B North, much worse.  Which is why I’m so skeptical when folks in A-B North believe that traffic alone was the reason Lowe’s got shot down (or that traffic issues will save the neighborhood from overdevelopment).  Perhaps somebody else, more influential than Lowe’s, has an eye on that site..  If it’s Harvard, or a big office/retail/residential developer — I would take Lowe’s overt them any time; I’m a little tired of “more of the same”.

Have a good weekend.  Let’s have a nice break from thinking and writing about these issues.  There is more to life than this...

Eva



 

[ab_resi...@hotmail.com]

Eva,
A lot of excellent points on your part, but I want to clear up a few
things.

First, when I mentioned that I was saddened, I was referring to your
statement that my belief in neighborhood activism saving us from big
development is naive. That statement goes against every person who has
worked on any issues they believe in. I feel that no matter how big
the challenge or opponent, NEVER go down without a fight! If there is
passion and will then there is no that cannot be fought. Sorry, but I
do not interpret your statement, "Your belief that our neighborhood

activism can save us from big development in A-B North strikes me as
very naïve (I don¹t mean it in an offensive way ‹ I just can¹t find a

better word)", in any other way.

I think there are good points on both sides of the arguement but I
still feel that stopping Lowes from coming into the area is a victory
for the quality of lfe in A/B.


On Mar 7, 2:18 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 3/7/08 10:01 AM, "ab_resident...@hotmail.com"

[Eva Webster]

Dear Ab-resident_72,

We seem to have some intense internet magnetism/polarity between us, because I cannot pull myself away from writing back to you.  If you’d rather take a break from our exchanges, please stop responding to me -- so we both don’t end up jumping into the Charles to end our tormented, activist lives.  Imagine the headlines in the Tab and the Brighton Centered blog...

On 3/7/08 2:12 PM, "ab_resi...@hotmail.com" <ab_resi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I actually believe that even if some sort of office park or building complex
> goes up it would not create the same magnitude of problems as would Lowes. You
> mention that having a "steel-and-glass corporate high rise" would have no

> connection to our lives, but the bigger fear is the detrimental " connection"

> a Lowes would in fact have on our lives.

That is exactly the crux of our disagreement (no hurt feelings though on my part):  you think that office high-rise(s) would be a lesser evil, and I think that Lowe’s would be a lesser evil, even from the traffic standpoint.

New Balance has 700-car parking, and you can fit 3+ New Balance developments on the Barry Controls site — so do the math.  Office workers’ cars would be worsening rush hour traffic (and you got the taste of how bad it gets on Washington St. the other day) – unlike Lowe’s traffic which would be spread out.  (When contractors go to pick up their stuff for jobs, most people are still asleep, or watching television after dinner.)

Additionally, if the next proposed development for Barry Controls has retail in the bottom of all that office space (the BRA favors mixed uses — this is a city after all), I think that you are mistaken thinking that a large office complex would cause less traffic than Lowe’s.

Market Street’s traffic went to pot after New Balance and WGBH were built -- but Home Depot in Watertown has not completely choked Arsenal Street despite many heavy contributing traffic factors there, just as WFW Parkway has not been jammed shut by the West Roxbury Home Depot.

> I stress that If you want to see a preview of things to come if Lowes were to
> be located in Brighton just try driving through Washington, Market, or other
> main streets leading to or around Brighton Center during these high traffic
> hours.

I drive there frequently and am well aware of the traffic jams associated with Brighton Center.  On the way to Home Depot or other businesses in Watertown, and back, I sometimes curse in my car like a longshoreman (with windows closed, of course) — a big reason why I like my car very much ;-)

But think about it:  we already have those rush hour traffic problems -- and that is without Lowe's, without CompUSA being occupied, without the big Market St. pharmacy whose roof collapsed, without the Speedway/State Police property being developed, without Charlesview, and without Leo Birmingham Parkway being developed (which will likely happen in the-not-too-distant future).

Does that mean that you intend to be fighting any large retail or other development in those locations too, and that we can prevent it?  Since that is not realistic — what other ideas do you have beyond hoping that our elected officials will stop all that development/uses (which they cannot do)?

One thing on which I’m sure you would agree with me is that something needs to be done about all this traffic — present and future -- so the neighborhood can thrive and improve, instead of always rejecting life enhancing uses (and Lowe’s would be such a use for many A-B homeowners).

Speaking of thinking “out-of-the-box”, Allston-Brighton needs a major “Traffic Improvement Initiative” -- and ASAP.

This initiative should include a study of prevailing vehicular patterns by a first-class, highly experienced traffic engineering firm, AND funds for physical implementation of their recommended solutions -- because studying something, and then just leaving the findings unaddressed is a waste of time and money.

(I witnessed such waste several years ago with a Cleveland Circle initiative — I was not permitted to have a say on it by some freaks obsessed with personal control — and that study threw $100,000 of public money into a planning/consulting black hole, and improved absolutely nothing; wish it was just used for some straightforward beautification.)
 
I think that the number one traffic improvement project that would relieve congestion in Brighton Center (and thus improve traffic on all the streets leading to it) would be a construction of a well-designed and executed road underpass.  Depressing the Chestnut Hill Ave.-Market St. roadway underground as it crosses Washington Street would probably be more practical than depressing Washington Street.

The underpass could be engineered in a way that would allow cars from Market Street to turn right onto Washington (the street widens there to the right), if that’s what the traffic engineers would determine to be desirable.  (On the opposite side, no cars must absolutely turn from Chestnut Hill Ave. right onto Washington St., because such cars can take Winship St. before they make it all the way to Brighton Center.)

In conjunction with that overpass, other alternative routes throughout the neighborhood would need to be mapped and developed.  One of the reasons that Washington Street is so clogged is that unless you know other streets in the area very well, most people don’t know how to avoid driving on Washington.

And this is just a beginning.  Perhaps there are other places where such underpasses could be built (intersection of North Beacon Street and Market? or where North Beacon comes to Union Square?).  Also, we nee truly well-positioned and thoughtfully-programmed traffic lights — the kind of signals that don’t actually interfere with traffic, but are deliberately designed to move it quickly and efficiently.  No ridiculous “traffic-calming” measures that purposefully diminish a road’s capacity (as they did foolishly on Beacon St. in Brookline).

Additionally, to keep up with new development that is inevitably heading our way (mostly because of the upcoming development in A-B North, as well as BC expansion), we may have to make some initially unpopular decisions and changes.  For example, traffic on Market St. could vastly improve overnight if no curbside parking was allowed there and you could gain an additional lane of traffic going past Sparhawk and St. Columbkille’s Church.

Some other streets could be made one way, doubling their capacity in one, most frequently used direction -- to channel cars away more quickly from trouble spots — while some other currently one-way streets, could be made two way — all of that a part of a meticulously thought-through Plan.

Such a Plan, and its implementation, would make things a whole lot better — but these public road improvements are unlikely to materialize unless we actually make some peace with inevitable development, and are willing to say, “OK, we’ll take Lowe’s (or whatever) in exchange for Lowe’s (or whatever) and the City coming up with resources to improve A-B’s traffic”.

If it was up to me, I would have welcomed Lowe’s and said, “Please pay $150,000 towards the Allston-Brighton Traffic Improvement Initiative”.  I would ask Harvard and BC to do the same — even more $$$ from them.

When the Traffic Improvement Plan is in place, and even sooner (in anticipation of it), I would have the City and the state Elected Officials jump on securing funds for building underpasses that would increase traffic efficiency throughout the area — so we can live in a great neighborhood that has everything we need without having gridlocked streets.

This is a constructive way to approach issues like Lowe’s and other development (though we should still keep a watchful eye to prevent excessive density!!)

One other reason why I wasn’t despairing about increases in traffic throughout this entire AB2006 discussion of recent days is because, paradoxically, I believe that I things may need to get a little worse traffic-wise before they can get better.  The City will not seriously work with us to improve traffic in A-B unless they absolutely have to.  They would if we got Lowe’s ;-)

Also, in the near future, gasoline costs will be discouraging many people from needless driving, and we will also see new brands of foreign-made light-weight bicycles and tiny, fuel-efficient cars (like the Smart Car), which take only half of the length of a traditional car (and smaller cars clear congested intersections more efficiently too).

Now — that’s it!  You won’t hear from me for a  while -- unless ab-resident_72 manages to push some other button in me ;-)

EMW

  

[Charlie Denison]

Eva,

I think the point with Lowes is that there is little chance that anyone will get to and from it by transit, walking, or biking.  However, offices or other non-hardware retail at least has a chance of attracting people there not by car.  Of course the transit service can be improved, but that's another issue altogether.  Perhaps if New Balance and WGBH had less parking available, they would generate more riders for local transit service, which the MBTA would then be able to improve since the ridership would warrant it.

Your views on traffic worry me deeply.  You speak of thinking outside the box, yet most of your suggestions are very INSIDE the box, the 1950s box of how to kill a neighborhood.  Underpasses, one-way multi-lane streets, eliminating on-street parking... sure they will all get traffic moving faster.  They will also make Brighton a very unpleasant (and dangerous) place for anyone not in a car.  One-way streets increase traffic speed and risk to pedestrians and also causes more traffic as people have to take circuitous routes to get where they want to go.  Eliminating on-street parking will hurt local businesses and make the streets much less pleasant to walk down as cars whiz by closer to the sidewalk.

I do agree that the traffic signals could indeed be adjusted.  The biggest bottleneck of city traffic is not the number of lanes or the speed limit, but the traffic signals.  Brookline recently installed new "smart signals" along Beacon St that automatically adjust green time in various directions based on the amount of cars sensed in the road.

I'm a bit amused that you speak of eliminating needless driving and increasing oil costs after you've just proposed solutions that will result in more people driving.  If we really want to reduce congestion and reduce needless driving (thereby improving the situation for those that must drive), we should all be advocating for better MBTA service and encouraging development that serves the neighborhood in a way that they don't have to drive there.

Charlie

Eva Webster wrote:

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1318 - Release Date: 3/7/2008 2:01 PM
  

[ab_resi...@hotmail.com]

Eva,
I'm not trying to push any buttons. I enjoy debating some of the views
and quite frankly you make some very good points, but with that being
said I still feel strongly that a Lowes located in the A/B area would
be detrimental to the quality of life for many A/B residents. The data
from the Lowes study speaks for itself. The traffic would be
overwhelming regardless of Rosie Hanlon's opinions.

Nobody knows how or when the site will be developed, and when the time
comes that someone proposes to develop on that site, it should again
be reviewed by the residents, elected officials, along with the BRA
and other formal city agencies to make sure it is does not come at the
expense of the community.

There are many possible uses for the former Barry Control site. I'm
sure we all have different opinions about what is/isn't a good fit, or
what we would like to see go there. Let's try to convince our elected
local officials that enough is enough. BC continues to do as they
please on one side; Harvard continues to do as they please on the
other. We in the A/B community need to start getting more involved
with its affairs if we want to protect the little the remains.

On Mar 7, 6:59 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Dear Ab-resident_72,
>
> We seem to have some intense internet magnetism/polarity between us, because
> I cannot pull myself away from writing back to you.  If you¹d rather take a
> break from our exchanges, please stop responding to me -- so we both don¹t
> end up jumping into the Charles to end our tormented, activist lives.
> Imagine the headlines in the Tab and the Brighton Centered blog...
>

> On 3/7/08 2:12 PM, "ab_resident...@hotmail.com" <ab_resident...@hotmail.com>

[colleen salmon]

Hi Everyone,

On Saturday I was across the street from Rite Aid at a party.  The building is in even worse shape than two weeks ago (I have attached pictures).   A young man at the gathering observed a man in a grey hooded shirt and jeans enter the Rite Aid through the front door...apparently they never secured the entrance door.  The building should be demolished because it is a danger and an eyesore.  People have not had access to the sidewalk on Market Street all winter so even in snow storms pedestrians must walk out onto a very busy  street to get past the building.  Every week the collapsed wall gets worse...are they just waiting for it to completely fall down?  It has been three months and that building makes Brighton look terrible and is a hazard.  I don't understand why Rite Aid has not been forced to demolish the building. 

Colleen

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Eva Webster]

This message is lengthy but discusses what is probably the key issue we face in Allston-Brighton.

This past Friday, I made a posting to this group proposing that A-B traffic issues could be improved/mitigated (so the neighborhood could better withstand traffic impacts of inevitable developments in AB North and around BC) if a we had a detailed professional, independent, neighborhood-wide traffic analysis done -- culminating with a well thought through “A-B Traffic Improvement Plan”, and followed, hopefully, by prompt implementation.

Well... I was promptly reminded that getting anything productive done in the public realm is always an uphill battle.  Why?  Because public projects require strong, unanimous support from local citizens — but there are always some folks who will voice contradictory opinions, whether it is warranted or not, which diminishes the energy of those pushing for positive change (and the likelihood that change will occur when it’s needed).

Example:  in response to my message, I got a response that made me think, “Here we go again!”.  

On 3/7/08 10:47 PM, "Charlie Denison" <cden...@comcast.net> wrote:

“I'm a bit amused that you speak of eliminating needless driving and increasing oil costs after you've just proposed solutions that will result in more people driving.”

So it appears that you, Charlie, would rather keep traffic bad, cumbersome and aggravating, just to discourage people from driving.

I know from another discussion we had in the past that you view reliance on the automobile as being wrong, but with all due respect, concluding that improving traffic is bad because it encourages more people to drive is nutty.  (It’s like someone telling young couples they must live in small apartments, so they wouldn’t be tempted to have children, thus not contributing to overpopulation.)

The number of cars on A-B streets reflects the number of people (residents and visitors) who have wheels and a place to park.  Those drivers who just have to pass through our neighborhood do so out of necessity, not for the fun of it.  So why would you have a problem with making all that traffic run smooth for everyone’s benefit?

Most new jobs and housing that will be built in A-B is going to be built with parking — because developers and employers are not prepared to jeopardize their investments by eliminating parking from their plans.  Homes have to be sold for profit, and jobs need to be filled with qualified people — not having adequate parking would be a serious obstacle to that.

Sooner or later, the A-B community will need to lobby for traffic improvement funds.  Will you be posting messages then in which you’ll be lecturing everyone that we are too car-friendly?  I hope not.

You also wrote:

“If we really want to reduce congestion and reduce needless driving (thereby improving the situation for those that must drive), we should all be advocating for better MBTA service and encouraging development that serves the neighborhood in a way that they don't have to drive there.”

I bristle when I hear such pronouncements not because I’m opposed to public transportation (I appreciated it very much in Warsaw, London, and Manhattan, where I used to live) -- but because anti-driving advocates imply that not owning/using a vehicle is somehow more virtuous than having one’s own transportation.

Tell that to some of the poor victims of Hurricane Katrina who couldn’t evacuate because they didn’t have cars and lost their lives, or ended with loved ones who drowned or suffered needlessly (and died) after being bussed to and left in the New Orleans Convention Center.

We live in very dangerous times — with the threat of chemical and other kinds of warfare aimed at the general population not just plausible, but likely.  Waiting for an ambulance in cases of emergency may take longer than a family member driving the sick person to the hospital (or out of a danger zone).  To me, having private transportation is not only a matter of convenience, but also essential to safety (as well as economic achievement).   

Tell people who are exhausted from juggling work and family responsibilities that they should forget owning a car -- wait for half an hour or more for a bus twice a day (when employers often keep workers past 6 pm, and then people need to buy food, put dinner for their family on the table, help children with homework, clean the house, do the laundry, pay the bills, visit sick parents, etc., etc., etc.)

The reality is that well-to-do people will always have and use cars.  When we ask A-B residents to give up driving, it is usually the ones at the bottom of the economic ladder that are asked to make that sacrifice because some planners (and people like Charlie D.) decide that those folks can live in housing units that don’t have parking.  But it is the poorest people that often need to work two jobs, and are desperate for time with their children, or just to restore themselves — and we’re telling them to rely on time-gobbling public transportation.  (The saying that time is money is never more true than when you’re making low wages.)


The MBTA can barely stay in the black operating the train/bus/trolley lines and accompanying infrastructure that they have right now.  They have no resources to invest in constructing and operating new (or improved) fast and efficient connections.  It’s because the MBTA is actually buried in debt.  

Even if the MBTA had funds for capital improvements and expanded operations, the way all those eastern Massachusetts towns are scattered around on off-shoots of main roads, it is impossible to have a fast, well-functioning public transportation network.  Many people change jobs so frequently these days that to move to avoid a commute is not practical — so they must drive to work.

Please come down from the clouds, Charlie.  People in A-B (and beyond) DO AND WILL HAVE TO DRIVE — because their jobs, friends, relatives, daycare centers, schools, doctors, dentists, civic/volunteer engagements, houses of worship, entertainment venues, small shops, big stores, restaurants, and a plethora of services that they need on a regular basis are not just in A-B, or even Boston.

A-B has miles of strictly residential streets with no other uses (and it is intentional).  All those destinations that we need to reach in our daily lives will never be within a comfortable walking distance for most people, or easily reachable by bus.

Walking all the time, bicycling every day, and using public transportation takes longer than most adults can fit in their hectic schedules.  It may work for you (I suspect you are not a head of a busy household, don’t work extra long hours, and don’t own a maintenance-intensive property) -- but you really should not expect that your preferred lifestyle must, or can work for everyone else.

A car for most people in Allston-Brighton is not a choice or luxury, but a necessity — and this would continue even if we had a quick subway to downtown Boston.  We will continue to face traffic issues because all the jobs and housing that new development in A-B North and elsewhere will create, will bring lots of commuters to our neighborhood (and most of our own residents are commuters too).

To me, people who think that the right way to plan and run cities is to make it difficult or impossible for others to have a car (you make it clear you are such a person), are too dogmatic for my liking, or patience.  I think that intense anti-car attitudes actually promote excessive density, and also force families into the suburbs -- so big cities end up being full of small, childless households (while a healthy city should be family-friendly).

If people can’t drive in the city, then it means that the city is already too overdeveloped for comfortable living.  And then, the fact that people can’t drive makes it possible for urban planning “gurus” to argue that 20+-story buildings are alright to have -- because with super-high density, that urban human “beehive” is supposed to sustain itself without cars — which of course is bogus.

People from the suburbs still have to come to those office towers — and the area becomes a big, super busy urban “ZOO”.

Having lived in Manhattan — been there, done that.  I wish for Brighton to be Brighton — with moderate density that allows people to drive. “Car” and “driving” are not dirty words to me.

When you are saying “We should all be advocating for better MBTA service” (of course, it wouldn’t hurt — but alas it’s futile in the current fiscal and political environment), I’m thinking to myself: “We should all be advocating for well-designed roads, effective traffic-moving solutions, and clean, small, ecologically-friendly cars”.  (It’s because even with the Urban Ring -- if and when it finally gets built -- there will be no effective MBTA solution that will work for all commuters and local residents.)

Please let’s agree to disagree, Charlie, with respect to these issues.  You won’t be able to pull me to your way of thinking, and I suspect you are not willing to challenge your beliefs.

You once told me that I should move out of Brighton if I want to continue to drive -- but I actually think you could be happier in Manhattan, because about 90% of residents there do not own cars.  They also don’t have yards (no free-standing houses), and are living in an “asphalt jungle”, surrounded by cement, steel, glass, overpriced stores, and cars everywhere — despite a pretty good subway system!

The NYC public transportation system made it possible to overbuild Manhattan and some other boroughs -- but it did not and never will eliminate extremely heavy vehicular traffic.  Keep that in mind when you think about the future of Allston-Brighton.

EMW

[Charlie Denison]

Eva,

I'm sorry that you feel I am anti-car. I certainly am not, as I agree
that cars serve an important role in the mobility of society today. I
do feel, however, that you overemphasize the importance of them in the
city and that your goal of making driving easier in Brighton by making
the roads more car-friendly is unattainable.

You say:

> So it appears that you, Charlie, would rather keep traffic bad, cumbersome
> and aggravating, just to discourage people from driving.

This is not true at all. My point is that your "solutions" of
removing parking and making one-way streets will simply generate more
traffic, and you'll end up with even worse congestion that you started
with. This is a well-proven concept called induced demand.

> I know from another discussion we had in the past that you view reliance on
> the automobile as being wrong

I don't think it is wrong. In a city, however, not everyone can rely
on them. It's just not feasible.

> The number of cars on A-B streets reflects the number of people (residents
> and visitors) who have wheels and a place to park.

Exactly. It also reflects those for which other options are not as
appealing. However, what's more important are the cars NOT on A-B
streets, those who either don't own them or don't use them all the
time. According to the BRA, approximately 1/3 of A-B residents do not
own cars. Imagine the congestion if they all did. Where would they
park them? How could you possibly expand the roads enough to
accommodate them? (You couldn't.)

Here's the document I'm referring to:
http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/pdf/PlanningPublications/ABNPI_Transportation_17May07_final%20_version.pdf

> Those drivers who just
> have to pass through our neighborhood do so out of necessity, not for the
> fun of it. So why would you have a problem with making all that traffic run
> smooth for everyone¹s benefit?

Having traffic running through the neighborhood in general degrades
the quality of life of those who live there. Of course some amount of
traffic is to be expected, and is healthy, for a variety of reasons,
however when people choose not to drive and use other options, the
neighborhood benefits even more.

> Sooner or later, the A-B community will need to lobby for traffic
> improvement funds. Will you be posting messages then in which you¹ll be
> lecturing everyone that we are too car-friendly? I hope not.

I would only oppose traffic improvements that degrade the experience
of other users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, etc). I would
also ask that we ask for "transportation improvements", not just
traffic ones. The more we do to make it easier for people to get
around by ALL modes, the better it is for everyone. The better we
make transit service, the more walkable and bikable we make our
neighborhoods, the less people will choose to drive or feel forced
to. The less cars other people use, the better traffic congestion
becomes for those who do drive.

> Tell that to some of the poor victims of Hurricane Katrina who couldn¹t
> evacuate because they didn¹t have cars and lost their lives, or ended with
> loved ones who drowned or suffered needlessly (and died) after being bussed
> to and left in the New Orleans Convention Center.

In times of disaster, evacuation by car almost always fails. It's
like rush hour times 1000. Did you see the news coverage of the
gridlocked Texas highways when an evacuation was taking place there?
What New Orleans lacked was a feasible evacuation plan. Fleets of
buses would have been able to transport far more people far more
quickly and efficiently than if everyone had tried to use a car.

> But it is the poorest people that
> often need to work two jobs, and are desperate for time with their children,
> or just to restore themselves ‹ and we¹re telling them to rely on
> time-gobbling public transportation. (The saying that time is money is
> never more true than when you¹re making low wages.)

If people are poor, why would you require that they spend $7000 a year
(the average yearly costs) to own and maintain a car? If we can
provide them with quality public transportation and build
neighborhoods where it is actually possible to walk and bike to at
least some of the places people need to go to, isn't that an even
better option for them, to help make their money go further.

> Walking all the time, bicycling every day, and using public transportation
> takes longer than most adults can fit in their hectic schedules.

Yet many people do it. I am extremely busy, and in most cases I find
that walking, biking, and taking public transportation is easier, more
relaxing, faster, and cheaper than driving. I drive when I need to go
somewhere farther away, but for the most part I have little desire to
drive where I'm going when these other options are available.

> The MBTA can barely stay in the black operating the train/bus/trolley lines
> and accompanying infrastructure that they have right now.

This is very true. The state also has no money for roads and bridges
either. There is a $15 billion backlog of maintenance that it cannot
do. Where would you suggest that it get more money to make even more
traffic improvements?

> Even if the MBTA had funds for capital improvements and expanded operations,
> the way all those eastern Massachusetts towns are scattered around on
> off-shoots of main roads, it is impossible to have a fast, well-functioning
> public transportation network.

We already do have a public transportation network that functions
quite well, especially compared to elsewhere in the country, where
people have no other options but to drive. It's not perfect, but it
serves many people quite well (about 500,000 a day if I remember
correctly. Imagine if all those people used their cars instead.)

> Please come down from the clouds, Charlie. People in A-B (and beyond) DO
> AND WILL HAVE TO DRIVE ‹ because their jobs, friends, relatives, daycare
> centers, schools, doctors, dentists, civic/volunteer engagements, houses of
> worship, entertainment venues, small shops, big stores, restaurants, and a
> plethora of services that they need on a regular basis are not just in A-B,
> or even Boston.

I agree with you. Some people in A-B need cars a lot. Some people
need them a little. Some need them not at all. My point is that if
you can reduce these needs, you'll improve traffic congestion and make
the neighborhood more pleasant for everyone.

> If people can¹t drive in the city, then it means that the city is already
> too overdeveloped for comfortable living. And then, the fact that people
> can¹t drive makes it possible for urban planning ³gurus² to argue that
> 20+-story buildings are alright to have -- because with super-high density,
> that urban human ³beehive² is supposed to sustain itself without cars ‹
> which of course is bogus.

Cities DO survive without high car usage. Commercial rents in
downtown Boston have reached $100 per square foot, the highest ever,
higher than in Allston-Brighton, and higher than in the suburbs. If
downtown Boston were overdeveloped, as you seem to think it is
"overdeveloped", than the opposite would be true. Businesses would be
flocking to the suburbs, and the rents there would be skyrocketing.
People from the suburbs travel into downtown Boston on a daily basis,
most without using cars. Also, as I've stated before, Back Bay and
Beacon Hill are some of the most expensive and highly coveted
neighborhoods in the nation to live. Most people who live there do
not own cars. I do not think they would view themselves as suffering
without them.

There are and will continue to be people who choose to live without a
car or do not depend on one very heavily. I'm sure many of the 1/3 of
the people in Allston-Brighton who do not own cars made that choice
consciously and willingly, and chose to live in an area where they
actually have other options. You should be thanking these people for
their choices, as their lack of cars makes the roads less congested
for you and others who do use them.

Charlie

On Mar 10, 3:22 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:
> This message is lengthy but discusses what is probably the key issue we face
> in Allston-Brighton.
>
> This past Friday, I made a posting to this group proposing that A-B traffic
> issues could be improved/mitigated (so the neighborhood could better
> withstand traffic impacts of inevitable developments in AB North and around
> BC) if a we had a detailed professional, independent, neighborhood-wide
> traffic analysis done -- culminating with a well thought through ³A-B
> Traffic Improvement Plan², and followed, hopefully, by prompt
> implementation.
>
> Well... I was promptly reminded that getting anything productive done in the
> public realm is always an uphill battle. Why? Because public projects
> require strong, unanimous support from local citizens ‹ but there are always
> some folks who will voice contradictory opinions, whether it is warranted or
> not, which diminishes the energy of those pushing for positive change (and
> the likelihood that change will occur when it¹s needed).
>
> Example: in response to my message, I got a response that made me think,
> ³Here we go again!².
>

[Greg Lyons]

I'd say clean up in aisle five, that is really dangerous looking and walking in the street for pedestrians is much too hazardous.  Rite Aid should do something to take care of it ,now.  The company is lucky no one was hurt or has been hurt since the roof collapse.

Lisa McDonough

Allston, Ma

 

----- Original Message -----

From: colleen salmon

 

Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:18 PM

Subject: [AB2006] More on Rite Aid

Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

---

---

---

---

[brighton resident]

Mike Pahre posted concerns about this on his Brighton Centered Blog, and a person commented to Mike’s write up with the phone # of the person who owns this property, encouraging people to call.  I called the phone #, left a message, and received a prompt reply.  

I suggest anyone concerned about this issue get the phone # of the owner of this property off Mike’s blog and make your own call.  When I called I was told I was the only person who had inquired.

---

From: Greg Lyons <noras...@rcn.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:28:07 -0400
To: AllstonBrighton2006 <AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [AB2006] Re: More on Rite Aid

I'd say clean up in aisle five, that is really dangerous looking and walking in the street for pedestrians is much too hazardous.  Rite Aid should do something to take care of it ,now.  The company is lucky no one was hurt or has been hurt since the roof collapse.
Lisa McDonough
Allston, Ma

----- Original Message -----

 
From:  colleen salmon <mailto:colleen...@yahoo.com>  
 
 
 
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:18  PM
 
Subject: [AB2006] More on Rite Aid
 

 
Hi Everyone,
 
On Saturday I was across the street from Rite Aid at a party.  The  building is in even worse shape than two weeks ago (I have attached  pictures).   A young man at the gathering observed a man in a  grey hooded shirt and jeans enter the Rite Aid through the front  door...apparently they never secured the entrance door.  The building  should be demolished because it is a danger and an eyesore.  People have  not had access to the sidewalk on Market Street all winter so even in snow  storms pedestrians must walk out onto a very busy  street to get  past the building.  Every week the collapsed wall gets worse...are they  just waiting for it to completely fall down?  It has been three months  and that building makes Brighton look terrible and is a hazard.  I don't  understand why Rite Aid has not been forced to demolish the building.   
 
Colleen
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find  them fast with Yahoo! Search. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
  

 

---

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

---

 

 

<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>

[Michael Pahre]

brighton resident wrote:
> Mike Pahre posted concerns about this on his Brighton Centered Blog, and a
> person commented to Mike¹s write up with the phone # of the person who owns
> this property, encouraging people to call. I called the phone #, left a
> message, and received a prompt reply.
>
> I suggest anyone concerned about this issue get the phone # of the owner of
> this property off Mike¹s blog and make your own call. When I called I was
> told I was the only person who had inquired.

Also: Christina Pazzanese, the reporter who does the Globe Watch column
on page two of the Sunday Boston Globe's City Weekly section, is looking
into the story.

If you have an opinion about the Rite-Aid store, if you think it's
safe/unsafe, beautiful/ugly, etc., please write to her with your opinion:

pazz...@gmail.com

-Mike

--
Michael A. Pahre
76 Foster Street Phone (617)787-8228
Brighton, MA 02135 USA Cell (617)216-1447
pa...@comcast.net
Brighton Centered Blog: http://brighton-community.blogspot.com/

[Rich]

I received an e-mail from Mark Ciommo this evening concerning the Rite
Aid. He tells me that the owner is getting a permit to demolish the
building and that ISD is aware of the problem.

Rich Terrass

On Mar 10, 8:08 pm, brighton resident <brightonresid...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Mike Pahre posted concerns about this on his Brighton Centered Blog, and a
> person commented to Mike¹s write up with the phone # of the person who owns
> this property, encouraging people to call. I called the phone #, left a
> message, and received a prompt reply.
>
> I suggest anyone concerned about this issue get the phone # of the owner of
> this property off Mike¹s blog and make your own call. When I called I was
> told I was the only person who had inquired.
>

> From: Greg Lyons <norasfo...@rcn.com>
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:28:07 -0400
> To: AllstonBrighton2006 <AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [AB2006] Re: More on Rite Aid
>
> I'd say clean up in aisle five, that is really dangerous looking and walking
> in the street for pedestrians is much too hazardous. Rite Aid should do
> something to take care of it ,now. The company is lucky no one was hurt or
> has been hurt since the roof collapse.
> Lisa McDonough
> Allston, Ma
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>

> > From: colleen salmon <mailto:colleen_sal...@yahoo.com>
>
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:18 PM
>
> > Subject: [AB2006] More on Rite Aid
>
> > Hi Everyone,
>
> > On Saturday I was across the street from Rite Aid at a party. The building
> > is in even worse shape than two weeks ago (I have attached pictures). A
> > young man at the gathering observed a man in a grey hooded shirt and jeans
> > enter the Rite Aid through the front door...apparently they never secured the
> > entrance door. The building should be demolished because it is a danger and
> > an eyesore. People have not had access to the sidewalk on Market Street all
> > winter so even in snow storms pedestrians must walk out onto a very busy
> > street to get past the building. Every week the collapsed wall gets
> > worse...are they just waiting for it to completely fall down? It has been
> > three months and that building makes Brighton look terrible and is a hazard.
> > I don't understand why Rite Aid has not been forced to demolish the building.
>
> > Colleen
>

> >> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

> >> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newse...
> >> tegory.php?category=shopping>
>
> >> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newse...
> >> tegory.php?category=shopping>

[Ava Chan]

Back in Fall 2005/Winter 2006, a study was conducted to identify key transportation issues and opportunities in Allston Brighton. It was funded by a grant from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to the Brighton Allston Improvement Association and the Allston Brighton CDC. Its purpose was to identify transportation-related issues and opportunities that would provide a case to the City for a comprehensive transportation study of the entire Allston Brighton neighborhood.

 

It was conducted by Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates and overseen by a coalition of local organizations including the Brighton Allston Improvement Association, Allston Village Main Streets, Allston Brighton CDC, and Hobart Park Neighborhood Association.

 

Attached are the products of the study and the workshop accompanying it.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ava Chan, Community Organizer

Allston Brighton Community Development Corporation

"Working Together, Building Community"

320 Washington St., 3rd Fl., Brighton, MA 02135

T: 617.787.3874 x201  F:617.787.0425

ch...@allstonbrightoncdc.org

 

From: AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eva Webster
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:22 PM
To: Charlie Denison
Cc: ab_resi...@hotmail.com; AllstonBrighton2006
Subject: [AB2006] Re: Solution to A-B traffic issues

 

This message is lengthy but discusses what is probably the key issue we face in Allston-Brighton.

This past Friday, I made a posting to this group proposing that A-B traffic issues could be improved/mitigated (so the neighborhood could better withstand traffic impacts of inevitable developments in AB North and around BC) if a we had a detailed professional, independent, neighborhood-wide traffic analysis done -- culminating with a well thought through “A-B Traffic Improvement Plan”, and followed, hopefully, by prompt implementation.

Well... I was promptly reminded that getting anything productive done in the public realm is always an uphill battle.  Why?  Because public projects require strong, unanimous support from local citizens — but there are always some folks who will voice contradictory opinions, whether it is warranted or not, which diminishes the energy of those pushing for positive change (and the likelihood that change will occur when it’s needed).

Example:  in response to my message, I got a response that made me think, “Here we go again!”.  

[Eva Webster]

Charlie,

Hoping for a break from writing posting, I suggested in my message last Monday that "we agree to disagree", but you immediately responded with many new points.  Some of them were useful for a healthy debate and I welcomed them, but others, alas, struck me as “faulty logic” (in my perception) — so I feel that I need to point it out in yet another response.

In any case, I hope that you can make a conscious effort not to take my disputing your points personally.  No human being, including you and me, can be right all the time.  Also, “being right” is a tricky business -- because our opinions are always a function of subjective thinking, derived from any given individual’s set of values, experiences, knowledge, and goals and aspirations for self and others. Those things are not, and cannot be, uniform across the board.

However, there is always positive value in discussing things, I think.  It’s the only way for people to understand other points of view, which expands our horizons.  To avoid discussing difficult subjects solves nothing -- so it is an enemy of progress.

Quotes from your message are in blue and indented; my responses are in black (or red in some places for emphasis).

  
On 3/10/08 4:38 PM, "Charlie Denison" <cden...@comcast.net> wrote:

> ...I agree that cars serve an important role in the mobility of society today.  

> I do feel, however, that you overemphasize the importance of them in the city

Your perception is incorrect.  The three big cities where I lived for many years prior to moving to this area made it possible for me, at that time, to live without a car — so I know that for some city dwellers a car is not an absolute necessity.

However, when people make a decision whether to have a car or not it always depends on a wide variety of factors -- the city’s character; the precise location and distance between home and work; access to parking; the availability (and ease of use) of public transportation; financial situation; and the nature of one’s job, housing, personal interests, and family situation.

Those things determine the appropriate level of “emphasis” that a person puts on having/using a car in the city — so to say that someone “overemphasizes” the importance of having a car (by whose standards?) is extremely arbitrary and judgmental.  

Also, to me, A-B is not actually a city (though administratively, it is a part of Boston).  A-B is a neighborhood -- meaning most people live here, but work elsewhere.  It is a hybrid between a suburb and a city, and should not, and hopefully will never become like downtown Boston (because it would be at the expense of the residential fabric that most of us treasure here).

It was actually moving to the Brookline/Brighton area that forced my husband and me to get our first car.  We could not easily go about our business, or be productive, without a car.  So I’m not “overemphasizing” the importance of cars — I am just objectively (I think) emphasizing the importance of cars to the majority of A-B residents who I know are in the same situation as we are.

> ...your goal of making driving easier in Brighton by making the roads more
> car-friendly is unattainable.

On this, I disagree with you very strongly.  Roads are primarily for cars (sidewalks for pedestrians), and if they are not made “car-friendly” then something isn’t right — like having houses that are not people-friendly.

Of course, pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ safety needs to be protected — but simultaneously with that, the city planners and traffic people (and elected officials in terms of funding) should make every effort possible to ensure that driving on streets in A-B is easy, orderly, and efficient.

This goal is not only attainable, but needed, expected, and necessary -- as demonstrated in the “Recommendations” section of the 2006 Howard/Stein-Hudson study that Ava Chan (CDC) forwarded to us yesterday.  Those recommendations call for additional, detailed traffic study work to be done (and that’s what I called for in my original message that started this thread).

> My point is that your "solutions" of removing parking and making one-way
> streets will simply generate more traffic, and you'll end up with even worse
> congestion that you started with.

First, you misinterpret what I said by generalizing it.  I did not ask to arbitrarily remove parking from A-B streets (nearly everywhere, parking is desperately needed, and its removal would lead to an exodus of residents or a demise of businesses).  Nor did I ask for making all streets one-way on a whim.

I asked for a very detailed professional study -- to determine whether changing (limiting, reversing, or restoring 2-way) direction of certain streets, or freeing additional lanes on major streets that are now overloaded, or adding a couple of underpasses, could help in key areas that are chronically gridlocked.  Those questions require well-researched answers.

How can you, Charlie, possibly condemn something that has not yet been studied, articulated or specifically proposed?

You belittle my call for doing everything we can to improve vehicular traffic because, as you said, you believe that making traffic easier leads to more traffic.  I have “news” for you, Charlie:  we will be getting more traffic no matter what.

The capacity of Chestnut Hill Ave. and Market Street (and Washington St., Western Ave., and North Beacon St., too, for that matter) have not changed in 200 years — while the neighborhoods and commercial areas that they connects have grown tremendously, leading to an unavoidable at this point stream of heavy traffic which is not about to subside -- on the contrary.  Thousands of new jobs and housing units that are in the pipeline for A-B, will make things much worse for us.

So should we prepare for it, or should we just sit doing nothing, and end up with A-B that gets completely paralyzed with rush hour or mid-day traffic, leading to stress and decreased productivity for our residents?

I don’t think that implementing intelligent traffic strategies (and that includes acceptance of the unavoidable presence of cars, and easing drivers’ frustration) automatically leads to an increase in traffic.

Build-able land in A-B is limited (and we should be rejecting developments that is too large anyway).  The number of cars on our roads correlates with the number of parking spaces that we have — so it is possible to a large degree, with careful planning, to control the volume of traffic -- while also making sure that whatever traffic we have moves efficiently and smoothly.  

You deride my suggestions as unworkable solutions — but it is not up to you do determine their validity.  It’s up to professional traffic specialists to figure out how to make our life around here easier (for the 2/3 of A-B population who have cars and drive).  

> This is a well-proven concept called induced demand.

“Induced demand”, with respect to car traffic, is a term invented by entities that either don’t want to pay for traffic improvements, or are afraid that it will invite additional cars -- as in bringing traffic from another area (which direct neighbors may oppose, but it may be necessary from the regional standpoint).

As a general rule, evasive decisions that are motivated by fear are not good.  They prevent proactively coming up with rational, productive, balanced solutions.  Still, the things that we want to avoid sooner or later catch up with us — because while we can refuse to be proactive, the world around us (i.e., development near and around Boston) doesn’t stand still — so being passive often produces worse consequences than meeting challenges face-on.

The fear of inviting traffic from some other area is a moot point for us anyway.  We already have pass-through traffic, and people who don’t need to drive through our neighborhood, don’t (they take major, faster roads -- the Turnpike, Soldiers Field Road, Route 9. etc.).

However, the cars that need to use the Chestnut Hill Ave./Market Street corridor do not have sensible alternatives (except maybe smaller residential streets like Lake or Foster, where we don’t want to increase the volume of cars beyond what it already is, and will be when BC expands).

Therefore, increasing the capacity of that main South-North/North-South (Chestnut Hill Ave./Market) axis, by having two lanes of traffic in each direction (by eliminating curbside parking, during rush hours at least) would move traffic more efficiently, allowing for shorter red lights at crossings — so the crossing or conjoining traffic could move faster too.  (Brookline, by the way, eliminated curbside parking along Chestnut Hill Ave. from Cleveland Circle to Boylston Street a long time ago.)

If additional lanes on Chestnut Hill Ave./Market are not freed for driving, whoever needs to take that key route will do so anyway — but it will take them twice as long to get through, causing the cross-streets to be gridlocked as well.  At some point, it will become untenable.

Another example:
Right now, the Chestnut Hill Ave./Market Street corridor has roughly the same amount of traffic as Comm. Ave. -- but Comm. Ave, has bigger capacity, so things move more smoothly.

However, if Comm. Ave. were single-lane, having only Market Street’s current capacity, you Charlie, would be opposed to increasing Comm. Ave.’s capacity with your argument of “induced demand”, I assume.  But the cars that need to to go West (towards Newton), and East (towards Boston) need to do it no matter what.  So sometimes it is not “induced demand”, but just plain and simple “demand” - and urban planning needs to be responsive to that by implementing logical and desirable traffic improvement/efficiency measures.

> According to the BRA, approximately 1/3 of A-B residents do not
> own cars.  Imagine the congestion if they all did.  Where would they
> park them?  How could you possibly expand the roads enough to
> accommodate them?  (You couldn't.)

The 1/3 of A-B residents without cars consist of children; teenagers; students in local universities; elderly folks (either in private housing or the several large senior housing projects we have); people who share cars with their spouses or other close relatives; some lucky few who can walk to work; a number of poor people; and in rare instances, people who could, but for some reason don’t want to bother with car ownership.

I do not expect these people to acquire cars, and they would not even if our traffic improved.

You should be actually emphasizing that as many as 2/3 of A-B residents do own and use cars — and that is a majority that should not be ignored and told that their fate is to put up with gridlock because no measures to ease congestion can or should be undertakan.

> Having traffic running through the neighborhood in general degrades
> the quality of life of those who live there.

Obviously.  Who could disagree with that?  Alas, A-B is the crossroads of several major transportation routes -- a dense neighborhood sandwiched between other densely populated areas.  We don’t live on some large, secluded estates, or in the bunnies.

Since you know that A-B cannot function without cars and traffic, what’s the use of demonizing vehicular traffic as degrading the neighborhood’s quality of life?  Objectively, people’s ability to drive when they need to (they do it primarily to make a living) contributes to our quality of life far more than it degrades it.

 

> I would only oppose traffic improvements that degrade the experience
> of other users (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, etc).

I respect your concern for those groups — and I am certainly not planning to push for degradation of those alternative modes of transportation.  It is not either this or that —  those things are not mutually exclusive.  Cars and pedestrians need to coexist on major A-B roads -- there is no choice.

However, if a very busy street is narrow and can’t handle the existing and anticipated traffic, asking for bike lanes that eliminate a viable and needed car lane is a bad idea -- because relatively few people benefit from that, but many would suffer (also, I think bicyclists can often use smaller neighborhood streets, and this way inhale less exhaust).

> I would also ask that we ask for "transportation improvements", not just
> traffic ones.

This is just semantics.  The key issue here is that we can get substantial traffic improvements just by working productively with Boston City Hall – whereas improvements in public transportation (MBTA) is a state matter, and much more difficult to accomplish.

The MBTA needs greater funding — big, big money -- and even if they got it (unlikely), no one can impress on the MBTA to spend hard-to-come-by funds on enhancing public transportation in A-B — because they have projects they consider more essential.

> In times of disaster, evacuation by car almost always fails.  It's like rush

> hour times 1000. (...) Fleets of buses would have been able to transport far

> more people far more quickly and efficiently than if everyone had tried to use
> a car.

It depends on the size and location of the potential disaster.  With a local, not regional, disaster, there is no question that everyone being able to escape in private vehicles is the fastest and most practical way.  Private cars can head directly for the homes of friends and relatives of the displaced individuals, including out of state, or to the airports.  Even in a wide, regional disaster, traffic can be managed via the radio or recorded telephone updates.  Worse comes to worse, people would rather sleep in their cars and vans than find themselves completely homeless.

> What New Orleans lacked was a feasible evacuation plan.

We don’t have it either.  If Boston had to be evacuated, where do you think they would take us on city buses?  Are there 550,000 beds waiting somewhere for us?  Of course, people would want to seek shelter in different locations.  Buses filled with scores of strangers, all wanting to go somewhere else, could not take them there.  Nor would the city have enough buses...

 

> If people are poor, why would you require that they spend $7000 a year
> (the average yearly costs) to own and maintain a car?

I do not “require” anyone to own a car — and the cost is not fixed at $7,000; it depends on many factors (mileage driven; age and record of the driver; spouses splitting expenses, cost of parking, etc.)  Also, keep in mind that public transportation is not necessarily cheap either.  There are complicated commutes involving trains and bus/trolley connections — when you calculate the time it all takes, and the cost of taxis or renting a car for vacation, special trips, etc. -- having a car may sometimes be a better, or preferred deal.

> If we can provide them with quality public transportation and build
> neighborhoods where it is actually possible to walk and bike to at least some
> of the places people need to go to, isn't that an even better option for them,
> to help make their money go further.

To have  car or not should be everyone’s own decision.  What I don’t like is all those empty promises that I heard throughout the years, mostly from developers, planners, and some individuals in City Hall, that we can give poor people means to succeed without cars -- when in fact that often limits their access to better paying jobs and other essential things (e.g., bulk shopping, recreation, etc.).  

Neighborhoods like ours rarely have well-paying blue-collar jobs (ditto for downtown Boston) — so if you keep people here with all those promises of housing without having to own a car, they almost always end up working minimum-wage service jobs.

> The state also has no money for roads and bridges either.  There is a $15
> billion backlog of maintenance that it cannot do.  Where would you suggest
> that it get more money to make even more traffic improvements?

It’s the city, not the state (or city with some supplemental state funding) that can help us improve local traffic.  Traffic improvements can be incremental, and financed from a variety of sources — a mixture of mitigation benefits from large developments and Institutional Master Plans (institutions benefit from better traffic too), city funds (A-B pays quite a bit in residential and commercial property taxes), PILOT payments from local colleges, state transportation grants, and if absolutely necessary, borrowing.

> We already do have a public transportation network that functions
> quite well, especially compared to elsewhere in the country, where
> people have no other options but to drive.  It's not perfect, but it
> serves many people quite well (about 500,000 a day if I remember
> correctly.  Imagine if all those people used their cars instead.)

You make it sound as if I was opposed to public transportation, or needed to be convinced of its value.  I’m glad that 500,000 people in Massachusetts don’t need to drive (at least all the time).  But the state’s population is 6.5 million, and traffic patterns are such that we can’t put everyone on buses, trains and trolleys.

> My point is that if you can reduce these needs (to drive), you'll improve

> traffic congestion and make the neighborhood more pleasant for everyone.

This is a good goal -- but the danger is in the zealotry with which some people approach this.  They decide that they can force people to give up cars, and they design things that make it impossible for an individual to have a car even if you truly need it -- and I have a problem with that.

I’ve seen neighbors, good people, leave my part of Brighton (moving elsewhere) because of lack of parking.  Apartments without parking are a revolving door — people move out as soon as they can find or afford a home with parking.  (If a good pedestrian environment was more important to them, as it is to you, they would be staying because our streets in Aberdeen are very walkable and there is access to three trolley lines — but that’s all useless if your job is not in Boston.)

 

> Commercial rents in downtown Boston have reached $100 per square foot, the
> highest ever, higher than in Allston-Brighton, and higher than in the suburbs.  
> If downtown Boston were overdeveloped, as you seem to think it is
> "overdeveloped", than the opposite would be true.

Boston is not overdeveloped for businesses.  Having offices in Boston is prestigious, and there is a value in being clustered with other companies, close to services, stores, hotels, restaurants, the airport, etc. -- so companies are willing to pay premium for that (plus business owners and bosses usually get chauffeured and live in luxury condos).

But when I talked about “overdevelopment” (and not specifically with respect to Boston, but some big cities in general), I was talking about the diminished residential quality of life when you live in a very expensive and congested city, and can’t really afford the glamorous downtown lifestyle (and especially if you have a family).  It limits certain choices, and can be quite stressful for people who psychologically desire more “elbow room” and closer contact with nature.

While visiting a large city with tall buildings and busy street life can be fun, I’m one of those people who prefers a smaller, human scale.  I prefer living in a house to an apartment/condo building; I like having a garden, open space and basic shopping within walking distance,  and easy access to everything else I need by car.  So for me, by definition, a city that makes it hard for people to have those things is “overdeveloped”.  It’s subjective.

> Back Bay and Beacon Hill are some of the most expensive and highly coveted
> neighborhoods in the nation to live.  Most people who live there do not own
> cars.  I do not think they would view themselves as suffering without them.
> There are and will continue to be people who choose to live without a
> car or do not depend on one very heavily.

I know some of those people.  Many would kill for a parking space.  Others are so affluent that using taxis, and renting luxury cars parked in expensive garages, is a regular thing for them.  They don’t use trolleys, believe me.

> I'm sure many of the 1/3 of the people in Allston-Brighton who do not own cars
> made that choice consciously and willingly, and chose to live in an area where
> they actually have other options.  You should be thanking these people for
> their choices, as their lack of cars makes the roads less congested for you
> and others who do use them.

It works both ways, Charlie.  Those using public transportation might as well appreciate that people who drive do not crowd trains, buses and trolleys to the point they would be packed like sardines.


I do not ask you to give up your beliefs and preferences regarding planning and transportation — please continue thinking whatever you want.  I just hope this tedious discussion is over.

Eva   

[Barbara Jaehn]

Dear Eva and Charlie,

Keep up the debate but not with rancor. Your vigorous
emailings has caused me to appreciate the complexity
of our future, and made me more determined than ever
that our communities have a voice in that future.

I'm new to this aspect of the Harvard destruction and
was wondering-

I was wondering if a commuter rail station was part of
the Harvard development plan--it would seem reasonable
being as the commuter rail Framingham line passes
within feet of the development area.

Are extensive bike paths for students and workers
commuting between the Cambridge and Allston campuses
planned? How many buses per day? How many shuttles?
Why would you want to pass a bus? I travel
extensively through Boston by bus and can think of no
street where this currently occurs (at least legally).

Are pathways for more leisurely strolls planned for
the banks of the Charles River, do we know where the
water level will be in 50 years (global warming) and
of course, will Allstonians and Brightonites be
welcomed? We certainly are not welcomed to use the
"public" access to the Charles River's bank via Boston
University.

After reading both of your posts carefully, I find a
four lane Western Avenue unacceptable on a number of
fronts which I won't rehash here. However, with
continuing and respectful debate we will find the
solution which works for our neighborhood, and then be
ignored by the BRA/Harvard.

Barbara

> cars, and easing drivers¹
>
=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Nathan Spencer]

Hi Barbara,
 
Here's some information I received with regards to a Commuter Rail Stop:
 
The Allston Landing/Beacon Yards study you are inquiring about is not being conducted by the State’s Executive Office of Transportation.  They have information on their website regarding their “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Long Range Transportation Plan” at the following link:  http://www.eot.state.ma.us/downloads/longrangeplan/chp4.pdf. Below, is an excerpt from their plan. 

 

Allston Landing

 

The Beacon Yards Rail terminal in Allston provides a multimodal transfer point between the CSX rail network, the Port of Boston, and the Boston metropolitan area.

 

MassPike recently sold the rail yard to Harvard University for possible future development as part of their proposed Allston campus expansion.

 

The railroad through-connections are critical to the region’s freight and passenger rail networks. Currently, CSX holds a permanent railroad easement over the land. During negotiations on the sale of the yard, EOT and the MBTA successfully negotiated rights for freight and passenger operations on a portion of the yard in the event of any future transfer of the permanent easements, thereby protecting the public’s interest at this important facility.

 

In addition, the proximity of the railyard to the Boston area and the Port of Boston makes it an important element of the regional freight distribution system. EOT’s effort to work with Harvard University, CSX, the MBTA, and the City of Boston is aimed at ensuring that a solid freight network continues to serve the port, the City of Boston, and the New England region. To that end, EOT is currently conducting a study to explore ways to ensure a strong port-to-rail connection at Allston or on dock. Allston Landing and Beacon Yards will also be addressed comprehensively as part of the state’s upcoming Freight Plan.

 

I woulds suggest contacting David Mohler, the Director of Planning at EOT, for further information that cannot be found on the website lsted above.

Nathan Spencer
Phone: (617) 653-7085
Email: nathan_...@hotmail.com

---

> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:21:25 -0700
> From: jaehn_...@yahoo.com
> Subject: [AB2006] Re: Solution to A-B traffic issues--Thanks!
> To: evawe...@comcast.net; cden...@comcast.net; AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com

[Matt]

Also see:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/allston/homepage/x1306418680

http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2008/020808/lma.shtml

Matt

On Mar 12, 2:45 pm, Nathan Spencer <nathan_spen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Barbara,
>
> Here's some information I received with regards to a Commuter Rail Stop:
>
> The Allston Landing/Beacon Yards study you are inquiring about is not being conducted by the State’s Executive Office of Transportation. They have information on their website regarding their “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Long Range Transportation Plan” at the following link: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/downloads/longrangeplan/chp4.pdf. Below, is an excerpt from their plan.
>
> Allston Landing
>
> The Beacon Yards Rail terminal in Allston provides a multimodal transfer point between the CSX rail network, the Port of Boston, and the Boston metropolitan area.
>
> MassPike recently sold the rail yard to Harvard University for possible future development as part of their proposed Allston campus expansion.
>
> The railroad through-connections are critical to the region’s freight and passenger rail networks. Currently, CSX holds a permanent railroad easement over the land. During negotiations on the sale of the yard, EOT and the MBTA successfully negotiated rights for freight and passenger operations on a portion of the yard in the event of any future transfer of the permanent easements, thereby protecting the public’s interest at this important facility.
>
> In addition, the proximity of the railyard to the Boston area and the Port of Boston makes it an important element of the regional freight distribution system. EOT’s effort to work with Harvard University, CSX, the MBTA, and the City of Boston is aimed at ensuring that a solid freight network continues to serve the port, the City of Boston, and the New England region. To that end, EOT is currently conducting a study to explore ways to ensure a strong port-to-rail connection at Allston or on dock. Allston Landing and Beacon Yards will also be addressed comprehensively as part of the state’s upcoming Freight Plan.
>
> I woulds suggest contacting David Mohler, the Director of Planning at EOT, for further information that cannot be found on the website lsted above.

> Nathan SpencerPhone: (617) 653-7085Email: nathan_spen...@hotmail.com
>
> > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:21:25 -0700> From: jaehn_barb...@yahoo.com> Subject: [AB2006] Re: Solution to A-B traffic issues--Thanks!> To: evawebs...@comcast.net; cdeni...@comcast.net; AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com> > > Dear Eva and Charlie,> > Keep up the debate but not with rancor. Your vigorous> emailings has caused me to appreciate the complexity> of our future, and made me more determined than ever> that our communities have a voice in that future.> > I'm new to this aspect of the Harvard destruction and> was wondering-> > I was wondering if a commuter rail station was part of> the Harvard development plan--it would seem reasonable> being as the commuter rail Framingham line passes> within feet of the development area.> > Are extensive bike paths for students and workers> commuting between the Cambridge and Allston campuses> planned? How many buses per day? How many shuttles? > Why would you want to pass a bus? I travel> extensively through Boston by bus and can think of no> street where this currently occurs (at least legally).> > Are pathways for more leisurely strolls planned for> the banks of the Charles River, do we know where the> water level will be in 50 years (global warming) and> of course, will Allstonians and Brightonites be> welcomed? We certainly are not welcomed to use the> "public" access to the Charles River's bank via Boston> University. > > After reading both of your posts carefully, I find a> four lane Western Avenue unacceptable on a number of> fronts which I won't rehash here. However, with> continuing and respectful debate we will find the> solution which works for our neighborhood, and then be> ignored by the BRA/Harvard.> > Barbara> > > --- Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:> > > Charlie,> > > > Hoping for a break from writing posting, I suggested> > in my message last> > Monday that "we agree to disagree", but you> > immediately responded with many> > new points. Some of them were useful for a healthy> > debate and I welcomed> > them, but others, alas, struck me as ³faulty logic²> > (in my perception) ‹ so> > I feel that I need to point it out in yet another> > response.> > > > In any case, I hope that you can make a conscious> > effort not to take my> > disputing your points personally. No human being,> > including you and me, can> > be right all the time. Also, ³being right² is a> > tricky business -- because> > our opinions are always a function of subjective> > thinking, derived from any> > given individual¹s set of values, experiences,> > knowledge, and goals and> > aspirations for self and others. Those things are> > not, and cannot be,> > uniform across the board.> > > > However, there is always positive value in> > discussing things, I think. It¹s> > the only way for people to understand other points> > of view, which expands> > our horizons. To avoid discussing difficult> > subjects solves nothing -- so> > it is an enemy of progress.> > > > Quotes from your message are in blue and indented;> > my responses are in black> > (or red in some places for emphasis).> > > > > > On 3/10/08 4:38 PM, "Charlie Denison"> > <cdeni...@comcast.net> wrote:> > > > >> > ...I agree that cars serve an important role in> > the mobility of society> > >> today. > > >> > I do feel, however, that you overemphasize the> > importance of them in the> > >> city> > > > Your perception is incorrect. The three big cities> > where I lived for many> > years prior to moving to this area made it possible> > for me, at that time, to> > live without a car ‹ so I know that for some city> > dwellers a car is not an> > absolute necessity.> > > > However, when people make a decision whether to have> > a car or not it always> > depends on a wide variety of factors -- the city¹s> > character; the precise> > location and distance between home and work; access> > to parking; the> > availability (and ease of use) of public> > transportation; financial> > situation; and the nature of one¹s job, housing,> > personal interests, and> > family situation.> > > > Those things determine the appropriate level of> > ³emphasis² that a person> > puts on having/using a car in the city ‹ so to say> > that someone> > ³overemphasizes² the importance of having a car (by> > whose standards?) is> > extremely arbitrary and judgmental.> > > > Also, to me, A-B is not actually a city (though> > administratively, it is a> > part of Boston). A-B is a neighborhood -- meaning> > most people live here,> > but work elsewhere. It is a hybrid between a suburb> > and a city, and should> > not, and hopefully will never become like downtown> > Boston (because it would> > be at the expense of the residential fabric that> > most of us treasure here).> > > > It was actually moving to the Brookline/Brighton> > area that forced my husband> > and me to get our first car. We could not easily go> > about our business, or> > be productive, without a car. So I¹m not> > ³overemphasizing² the importance> > of cars ‹ I am just objectively (I think)> > emphasizing the importance of cars> > to the majority of A-B residents who I know are in> > the same situation as we> > are. > > > > > > >> > ...your goal of making driving easier in> > Brighton by making the roads more> > >> > car-friendly is unattainable.> > > > On this, I disagree with you very strongly. Roads> > are primarily for cars> > (sidewalks for pedestrians), and if they are not> > made ³car-friendly² then> > something isn¹t right ‹ like having houses that are> > not people-friendly.> > > > Of course, pedestrians¹ and bicyclists¹ safety needs> > to be protected ‹ but> > simultaneously with that, the city planners and> > traffic people (and elected> > officials in terms of funding) should make every> > effort possible to ensure> > that driving on streets in A-B is easy, orderly, and> > efficient.> > > > This goal is not only attainable, but needed,> > expected, and necessary -- as> > demonstrated in the ³Recommendations² section of the> > 2006> > Howard/Stein-Hudson study that Ava Chan (CDC)> > forwarded to us yesterday.> > Those recommendations call for additional, detailed> > traffic study work to be> > done (and that¹s what I called for in my original> > message that started this> > thread).> > > > > > >> > My point is that your "solutions" of removing> > parking and making one-way> > >> > streets will simply generate more traffic, and> > you'll end up with even> > >> worse > > >> > congestion that you started with.> > > > First, you misinterpret what I said by generalizing> > it. I did not ask to> > arbitrarily remove parking from A-B streets (nearly> > everywhere, parking is> > desperately needed, and its removal would lead to an> > exodus of residents or> > a demise of businesses). Nor did I ask for making> > all streets one-way on a> > whim.> > > > I asked for a very detailed professional study -- to> > determine whether> > changing (limiting, reversing, or restoring 2-way)> > direction of certain> > streets, or freeing additional lanes on major> > streets that are now> > overloaded, or adding a couple of underpasses, could> > help in key areas that> > are chronically gridlocked. Those questions require> > well-researched> > answers.> > > > How can you, Charlie, possibly condemn something> > that has not yet been> > studied, articulated or specifically proposed?> > > > You belittle my call for doing everything we can to> > improve vehicular> > traffic because, as you said, you believe that> > making traffic easier leads> > to more traffic. I have ³news² for you, Charlie: > > we will be getting more> > traffic no matter what.> > > > The capacity of Chestnut Hill Ave. and Market Street> > (and Washington St.,> > Western Ave., and North Beacon St., too, for that> > matter) have not changed> > in 200 years ‹ while the neighborhoods and> > commercial areas that they> > connects
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[Eva Webster]

I don't know if the Lowe's proposal is still alive (probably killed by neighborhood opposition) but I came across a somewhat relevant article -- it's on the New York Times Most Email List today.  The title is "Brooklyn Neighbors Admit a Big Box Isn’t All Bad".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/nyregion/11ikea.html?em