By Benjamin Shiller
Option C has emerged as the winning choice for rezoning for the Housing Choice Act. Although the discussion may have seemed divisive, I truly believe that our goals for the town are aligned.
The Planning Board has already made great strides in a short time towards drafting the bylaws. However, the time left is extremely limited. If we all work together, we can fine-tune bylaws that protect retail at the mall and benefit residents, the environment, and walkability. The mall is the only area zoned for retail in the station area under our Housing Choice Act proposal) Thus, our only chance for retail is through the mall’s redevelopment. More retail increases walkability and reduces fossil fuel usage.
Here are some concerns I think we should consider at the upcoming January 5 Planning Board meeting.
- Retail space and residential affordability are not compatible: At their December 12 meeting, Planning Board members discussed what percentage of square footage at the mall should be required to be retail rather than residential. While town residents benefit from retail space, strict requirements may make redevelopment unprofitable, and several members believe we need to substantially reduce retail space from current levels to make the mall redevelopment viable. I suggest we encourage developers to use profits from market-rate units in the mall to subsidize larger retail spaces. The mall is not the place to build a large number of “affordable” apartments. Fortunately, Option C provides numerous locations outside of the mall to build a variety of housing options for a variety of budgets.
- Ground-level and second-floor retail are both appealing: The Planning Board seems to prefer retail on the ground level — which I agree with — but this is not yet set in stone. Retail space on the ground level is more appealing to retail establishments such as restaurants, grocery stores, and banks. The second floor may be appealing as office space, as in the current mall.
- Retail parking is vital: One parking space for retail allows multiple customers to come and shop there at different times of day; one retail parking spot = multiple customers. However, if retail parking spaces are displaced by resident parking spaces, retail customers will go elsewhere, putting our retail in a more precarious position than currently. Moreover, the Housing Choice Act does not allow us to require any spaces for retail parking, and there is limited land for buildings and parking. This is not a problem with a simple solution.
- Parking during construction: Our retail is allegedly in a fragile state. Can it survive if parking spots for customers are temporarily (or permanently) removed during construction? Let’s craft a plan that makes clear where customers can park and how trucks full of groceries can reach the offloading bay during construction.
We can do hard things. And we can do them quickly as long as we all work together. This is arguably the biggest change in Lincoln in last 50 years. Let’s make sure we do this right!
Shiller is a member of Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives, a citizens’ group that advocated for other rezoning alternatives prior to the December 2 Special Town Meeting.
“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.
Housing and retail have a long history of compatible development. Bronxville and Scarsdale in New York, Wellesley in Massachusetts, and countless other older suburbs have less expensive apartments above and in buildings adjacent to small shops, before these “village centers” give way to larger single family homes. This may not suit conditions as circumscribed by the RLF, town committees, or the present developer, but the “mix” is clearly possible, ordinary, and even traditional in much of the country. Thanks. Don Seckler