<Previous - Look What Romney Said About Stay at Home Moms - How Do We Stop Our Insane War on Drugs? - Next>
Brookline's Climate Action Plan
The Town of Brookline has a climate action plan meant to combat climate change at a local level. I don't know how many cities and towns do this, but I'm guessing Brookline is on the more progressive side. The wiki lists major areas of action such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, urban form and mobility, consumption and solid waste, food and agriculture, and community coordination, along with actions for future consideration. Each area has between one and a dozen more specific actions.

A common tactic for enforcing these actions is through the town's existing zoning laws, either as requirements or incentives. Unfortunately nothing is mentioned about one of the most powerful aspects of zoning - controlling density. In this case, nothing is said about increasing density in the town (it's possible you could say this one unfinished article advocates for increased density). Density is what makes cities more energy efficient than suburban and rural areas. And while Brookline calls itself a town and organizes its government as a town, it certainly exhibits many of the geographical and demographic qualities of a city. I live in Coolidge Corner, which is clearly an urban environment. All of Beacon Street from St. Mary's Street to Cleveland Circle is urban. Brookline Village is. So is everything that borders Boston on the north side and everything that borders the Longwood Medical area. There's more, but that's really the extent of my everyday life, so that's all I'll cite.

When people talk about green roofs and bike routes and public transit, they're talking about things that are only feasible in dense areas. Brookline is served by three lines of above ground subway - the C and D lines are in Brookline, but the B line is close enough to serve residents as well - and a number of bus lines. This doesn't happen without density. The greater distances between homes and work and commerce are, the less people use bikes as part of their everyday lives.

If Brookline is estimating 25% of its emissions come from transportation making mass transit and bicycle travel easier is a good place to start. Another 26% is estimated to come from electricity while 44% comes from heating in the cold New England winter. I submit that the those two numbers could be reduced with more density. One large building could better regulate heat usage and improve energy efficiency than many dispersed dwellings.

More density is not without its drawbacks. More people in closer space will increase pressure on roads and parks. There will need to be an increase in services if the population rises, though those services would probably be more efficiently delivered. And more housing stock will depress housing values. These are debates we in Brookline should have. But just because there are drawbacks - and even if those drawbacks preclude the town from adopting zoning laws that allow for higher density - does not mean they should be excluded from the conversation.
You're not wrong. M ore density would serve to reduce carbon, especially because the current density allows for far less carbon in transportation *and* because more density comes with two things -- smaller spaces [less to heat and cool] AND adjacent walls [heat and cooling "leaks" to another unit not to the outside air].

There is one action which would make a substantial difference -- parking requirements. Currently Brookline requires about 1 parking space per bedroom and multiple parking spaces per 1000 square feet. As a result, we have less development and smaller development than we would have otherwise because architects have to figure out how to squeeze underground parking in, often at the price of $50,000+ per space. Reduce the minimum parking requirement and you get denser development with fewer increases in traffic congestion nearby.

Posted at 4/25/2012 8:05:54 AM by stomv


Jeff,
Thanks for your blog post and letter in Patch. I agree that increased density (especially near existing transit lines) should be an important part of the discussion. If we restrict growth in Brookline, that growth is likely to be pushed further outside of Boston -- meaning more carbon emissions.

Best,
Chris

Posted at 4/28/2012 7:50:02 PM by Chris Dempsey


"If we restrict growth in Brookline, that growth is likely to be pushed further outside of Boston -- meaning more carbon emissions. "

Thanks for the comment, Chris. That's a good point I hadn't explicitly thought of. Just because you're reducing the number of people that live in Brookline doesn't mean people don't want to live in the area.

Posted at 4/29/2012 2:55:47 PM by Jeff Egnaczyk


 
[Click for Comment Policy]
New addition to comment policy: first time comments (denoted by your email address) go into moderation so I can get a grip on my yummy spam problem.
* indicates a required field.
I would never ever display your email address.
promise.
xoxo
* Name:    
* Email:    
URL