LETTER: A Resident’s Comments on Proposed Rezoning of Watertown Square

To the Editor:

I’ve been impressed by Manager George Proakis’ initiative, effort and community involvement process for the Watertown Square Area Redesign. In terms of the streetscape, it’s terrific that the manager is trying to create a plan that insists that our Square is first and foremost the center of our community, not just an intersection to drive through as quickly as possible. It is in terms of zoning that the draft plans have led to more disagreement.

Unlike some municipalities, we are choosing to obey the new MBTA Communities law and join in the region-wide attempt to increase the supply of housing by changing the zoning in the Square. The need for more housing units at lower rents and/or purchase prices is clear. It’s the right thing to do on behalf of our residents and would-be residents, to keep Watertown and the greater Boston area an economically diverse community. It’s also the economically necessary thing to do to keep the amazing economic engine of Massachusetts in high gear.

The new zoning state law is an understandable but highly imperfect means to this end. It makes sense that if housing production is insufficient across the region, the solution needs to be regional, and it’s been proven by experience that few municipalities will do their part voluntarily. Unfortunately, as an article in the May 18 edition of the Boston Globe reported, the new law is unlikely to produce much affordable housing across the region. The reason is that while the law requires zoning changes with the theoretical potential to create a certain number of units, most of these units are unlikely to ever be built, as exemplified by Arlington’s plan to comply with the law. The article reports that, “Arlington’s plan theoretically makes room for more than 3,000 new units, but in reality planners there say they’ll be lucky to see 200 built over the next decade.” Further, the law limits affordable units to only 10% of the new units built. With a housing market that is regional, even enthusiastic embrace of the law by some municipalities like ours is unlikely to affect housing prices.

I believe there are two primary reasons that some cities and towns avoid meaningful compliance with the law. One is that many people who are currently homeowners or small landlords don’t want to see rents or prices reduced, even if they’re sympathetic to the need. The other reason, the one I’d like to focus on, is that the law largely eliminates resident input on the design a developer may propose for a new residential building in the new zoning district. In Watertown, greater resident input on new construction has been seen as a progressive phenomenon that many community activists — many of the same activists who campaigned for higher affordable housing requirements in new multi-family housing — fought long and hard to bring into our zoning ordinance. If anything, despite the opportunities that now exist for residents to review and comment on development plans, complaints persist that the city administration and Planning Board have not taken resident input into account sufficiently. The fear is that, given the developers’ imperative to maximize return per square inch of lot size, inappropriately designed, tall, massive and ugly Lego-block buildings will rise up in a part of Watertown which now has heights that are mostly three stories or lower, a mix of architectural styles and, for better or worse, an old fashioned feel.

Our city’s planners propose to address these twin fears — of inappropriate buildings and the exclusion of consequential participation by residents in the review of individual proposed structures — by creating certain design mandates, not just guidelines, for the form of new buildings, depending on the building’s height and street frontage; so-called form based zoning. The idea is to have resident involvement occur at the earliest possible moment, when the zoning ordinance for the district is being written, rather than at the last possible moment when developers are trying to get individual buildings built. The theory is that planners and residents together can create design requirements and limitations that satisfy the aesthetic sensibilities of the community without being so constricting as to discourage developers and investors who are in it for the money.

It’s difficult, I think, for most people who aren’t architects to envision an assortment of abstract architectural design requirements that will achieve a pleasing and non-uniform visual result while still allowing for innovation. It is really hard for most of us (myself included) to participate in putting together a design ordinance other than by reacting to design professionals’ ideas and to really understand what we might be agreeing to, or equally important, understand what’s left out of the ordinance that might result in a collection of structures we might prefer more. I also suppose that, absent a right to evaluate projects on a case by case basis, some people will find it hard to sufficiently trust the city’s professional staff, consultants, volunteer board members and elected officials to come up with a form based zoning ordinance that has the result they want.

But one design feature that most everyone can envision is height. We all know what a five story building with mechanical equipment on the roof looks like. It’s for that reason I believe that the degree of acceptance by the public of the city’s plan to be put forward in the coming days is likely to depend largely on the building height maximums in the plan. My sense is that most residents who are concerned about heights would accept the tradeoff of a larger district subject to the new law in exchange for lower heights.

It is also worth noting that our city need not, and should not, do nothing more than rezone the Square to encourage more affordable housing. We can also cause more affordable housing to be built by direct city support through the funds of the Community Preservation Act, Watertown Housing Trust, and Watertown Housing Authority. Through CPA funds and the Housing Trust the city has the chance to get affordable housing built if the right land, developer, state contribution and loan package can be brought together. The Housing Authority has the chance to make a real impact with the Willow Park proposal, but again only if sufficient city and state support is granted.

Lastly, it may be that more housing can result from a careful reexamination of our whole zoning ordinance, such as by thoughtfully considering changes to the rules around alteration of non-conforming uses and buildings and on lot sizes and setback requirements for pre-existing structures, subject to special permit approval. If preferential treatment can be given to adding a unit to an existing home, rather than tearing it down and substituting a new structure, that may help preserve the appearance of our residential areas while increasing the housing stock.

And of course none of this will work unless public transit improves to the point that the people who would live in all the additional units can readily and dependably connect to the wider region. Perhaps that’s the next thing the manager and our state lawmakers can tackle.

Jon Bockian
Watertown Resident