Sean Peter Kane

The topic around Easthampton is not whether there will be growth but what kind of growth. It’s a serious question that needs to be handled appropriately by the city and the community. This decision will affect the quality of life for the residents now and in the future.

There are two major elements to this discussion happening now:

1. Smart Growth Overlay Districts
2. Stop & Shop on Northampton St

The city Planning Department and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission have outlined three forms of Smart Growth Overlay Districts for the downtown area. These overlay districts will allow the property within them to be developed more densely, with mixed-uses, and be more walkable. It will help to focus development on these areas so that the outlying open space around the city can remain untouched. The city is holding a public meeting this Tuesday to discuss these proposed overlays. I urge the city and residents to approve these districts. They will help to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the city.

This past Wednesday, the Planning Board unanimously approved the permit by Stop & Shop to build a new store on Northampton Street. This approval is in direct contrast to the overlay district proposed for that same lot. Back in September, the board denied S&S’s request because the parking lot was located in the front. Present regulations (as well as the proposed overlay district) state that parking must be located to the side and/or back with the building structure located along the street. The new plan presented this past Wednesday is the same plan. The only changes are that a small building and gas station that were proposed in September to be at the street have been removed. S&S’s present plan still has a huge parking lot located in the front with the main structure located at the back of the property. The issue here is that the front parking lot increases driver visibility on Route 10 making them drive faster as well as decreases walkability as people will have to walk through a sea of blacktop to get to the store.

The city is making a great and well-thought move by proposing the Smart Growth Overlay Districts. The Planning Board on the other hand is just taking this backwards by approving Stop & Shop’s latest plan. I’m hoping that the “green” elements that S&S proposed in their plan are actually implemented and worth it for the city. That big parking lot is only going to give other developers reason to do the same.

I have officially finished my first semester of the Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning grad program at Tufts. It was a bit intense, especially since I focused on taking my required classes all in the semester. I topped the semester off with a large project (paper, portfolio, and poster), reflection paper, and an Economics exam.

That now leaves me with about five weeks of break time. And now I find myself a bit lost. I was so used to being busy with reading, papers, and projects during the semester that I now have time that I don’t know how to use. I am working on a research project with one of the professors as well as putting together a new online resource website. There are also two urban planning competitions that I’ll be working on. It however feels weird but liberating not to be busy non-stop right now.

I guess I should enjoy it while it lasts.

This weekend Boston played host to Rail~Volution 2009. The conference is a meeting of the minds: multimodal practitioners/engineers, politicos, citizens, and students; all of whom are interested in and/or focused on “Building Livable Communities with Transit.” Due to my course load and homework, I was only able to manage one day at the event – but it was certainly worthwhile.

The convention include mobile workshops that took part around metro Boston and evaluated options to create more livable communities in those locations (better transit and access which results in happier, healthier citizens that are in the end more willing to consumer). While there certainly is the capitalist self-interest of those vendors looking to “sell” the community on their method of transportation (streetcars, bike lanes, etc.), the public good is the front-and-center concern.

It was great to see so many people focused on this new movement, this new paradigm shift away from the mentality that life has to revolve around the automobile. As Americans, we are finally learning what our European and Japanese counterparts have long understood, mass transit benefits all and is environmentally and socially just. There is a lot of work to be done in order to complete this shift, but the cogs are moving and the convention was a great reflection on that movement.

Sadly though, there are two recent items that I have noted that are in direct contradiction to the public’s desire to move away from the automobile. And those two items come directly from the auto industry itself:

1. Audi recently put out a new ad to promote their “clean diesel” A3 TDI. As they put it, it’s more “fun” to do your part (save the environment) by driving their car rather than using any alternative to the automobile. It’s quite funny how they show the negative aspects to alternative travel methods and not a single negative aspect to driving a car. Those would include but of course are not limited to (on the individual level): high cost to purchase the car, constant costs to maintain and insure the car, housing/parking for the car, safety concerns with the car, environmental impact to produce and deliver the car. But hey, it’s fun to drive a “clean diesel” car, right. It’s still a non-renewable resource.

2. Lexus is sponsoring the Parkitecture Design Competition. As Americans decide to use other transit options, the need for multiple cars within their family is shrinking. Lexus thinks otherwise. The competition promotes the concept of 1) a free-standing building (great use of land area) and 2) the need to store up to three autos (though they do not state this is for the hypothetical family but they also do not state that you should consider in the design the access by multiple families).

I myself am auto-free though we do have one car in the family, a car that is rarely ever used thanks to the awesome T and walkable neighborhoods here in Metro Boston. While I myself will not be sway by a fun car ad or made to think I really need a cool new garage, there are others that will be affected by these. These same individuals may have begun to sway to alternative methods. And its these same individuals that the auto industry is grasping for. A paradigm shift is inevitable, it will be exciting to see when it fully comes to fruition.

This evening, the MA Chapter of the APA and MIT hosted a talk by Anthony Flint about his new book Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took On New York’s Master Builder And Transformed The American City”. Attended by about 50 people, the group included professors, practitioners and students from across Massachusetts.

To begin with, Flint described the present focus on planning – infill, redevelopment, building off of and expanding public transit. As he noted, this stands in stark contrast to the actions happening in the 1960s – and it was these two pivotal people (Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs) who helped get us to where we are today.

It was interesting to hear how he compared the two. Generally, the planning field is (now) very critical of Robert Moses while many (especially the New Urbanists) praise Jane Jacobs. It turns out though that they had their similarities and weren’t wholly positive or negative.

One of the biggest issues facing planners these days is NIMBY-ism (Not-In-My-Back-Yard). Flint pointed out that it was Jacobs that really started this concept. Her efforts to protect New York’s neighborhoods from demolition for highway projects encouraged the public to protect their home and the area around it. He also noted that it was this same “protectionism” that she sponsored that saved homes in the West Village. That same neighborhood has gone through major gentrification, resulting in the displacement of the same people Jacobs wanted to save from highway displacement. It’s resulted in a new guerilla campaign More Jane Less Marc. Of course, he brand of public concern and action had a much greater positive effect – such as the great freeway revolts in Boston and San Francisco.

While Jacobs provided America with the concept of “human-scale neighborhoods,” Flint made the case for Moses’s concern and focus on infrastructure. We are at the cusp of an infrastructure meltdown. Sadly, the public backlash regarding Moses caused us to turn away from infrastructure rather than incorporate it equitably.

Flint closed his presentation with the question “How does a city reinvent itself?” Jacobs left us the owner’s manual for the city and neighborhood. Now we need to embrace density through proper design and scale, transit node focus, and distribution of parks.

Following his presentation, Flint opened the floor to questions and discussions. These included:

• Do we need government subsidies?
• What will be the effect of the new MassDOT
• Smart growth initiative for mixed-income developments
• How to balance NIMBY-ism
• Developing on/near the Greenway
• Flint’s concern and focus on climate change and our responsibility for immediate action
• Where is the future of planning heading?
• The importance of visualizing a plan through new technology and how it fits into the regional framework
• Jacobs would support the Times Square traffic calming measures (she attempted something similar) and potential congestion charges
• Potential for sustainability to converge the engineering and planning fields

On September 28th, the Planning Board of Easthampton, Mass, rejected retailer Stop & Shop’s plan to build a new grocery store in the city. The topic has been an outgoing item for the city and its residents for the past ten months since the application was submitted. It however has been weighing on residents’ minds for years when the site in question was sold to Stop & Shop.

Easthampton is my home town. I hold it close to my heart. As an urban planning graduate student, I also am quite interested in the Master Plan which Easthampton approved in 2008. The plan reflects the fact that the city is growing but that the growth must be done through smart growth functions. Developed with assistance from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, the Master Plan incorporates elements to ensure the city is a community and not a strip development.

This brings us back to the topic of Stop & Shop. The residents of Easthampton have always shunned big box developments. While an effort to formalize the consent failed, the city has never approved a large retail development within its borders. A single grocery store, Big E’s, is in town – a mainstay for decades though significantly smaller than any grocery store of today. There are a few small specialty grocers in town, but Big E’s has been the only true grocery store. Big Y, based in Springfield, attempted to build a store in town back in the 1980s, however, that initiative failed and the company was forced to build in Southampton on the Easthampton border.

Discussions regarding big box developers in town have come up a number of times. Previously they were seen as a potential opportunity for economic invigoration during the town’s recessive years in the 1980s and early 1990s. Those days have since been replaced by the economic “boom” that Easthampton saw in the 1990s and 2000s, starting with the establishment of a lively artist community. People now regularly walk and shop throughout town, something we certainly did not see in the 1980s.

The latest Master Plan builds off that ideal. It focuses on strengthening the business core of the city, establishing a highway business district along Northampton St – all with a walkable community in mind.

Stop & Shop filed for development under “planned business development”. Under this type, a development must place its parking at the side or rear of the building. A number of studies have been done to show the negative impact of front-located parking lots. Easthampton has deemed this type of parking lot out of favor. Stop & Shop’s submitted development plan clearly placed its parking lot in front of the structure (though behind two minor streetside-located buildings).

It was this blatant disregard for Easthampton’s approved parking guidelines that caused Stop & Shop’s plan to be rejected. The Planning Board was not rejecting the development on the basis it was big box or that the town does not need business development. It was rejected on the terms that the public good must prevail. The city had created specific design guidelines that the public desired. Those businesses that desire to work and grow in the town must respect the desire of the public.

Unlike board chairman, Jason Duda, I too would have rejected the plan. The citizens of the town shot down a no-big-box ordinance. The Planning Board must therefore approve big box development. Those developments must adhere to the public’s design guidelines. If Stop & Shop revises their plans in accordance to town regulation, I’m all for supporting this business. The town is growing and does need additional food sources. The town however must ensure that those food sources are established with the public good and concern in mind.

Jason Duda clearly had some self interest weighing on his shoulders when he stated he supported the development. For him, the board should approve the plan (with conditions). This just leaves the door open to interpretation and additional issues with future developments. By requiring the builder to adhere to the guidelines BEFORE approval, the Board has solidified and qualified those standards. Jason Duda needs to be reminded of his duties as a board member – those duties state he is serving the public, not Stop & Shop.

Thank you Ann M. Parizo, Harry E. Schumann and Chester H. Seklecki Jr for supporting Easthampton’s desire to be a true community, in spirit and physical development.