Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1966-02 SRLC-report A_Plan_For_Lexington_Center
' a COMPREHENSIVE REPORT Ai t 11 A PLAN FOR I NGTON .2,,,„,,,, L E , , C EN' TER - COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON A PLAN FOR LEXINGTONCENTER prepared for the LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD and the TOWN' COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE REVITALIZATION OF LEXINGTON CENTER ' u 1 February, 1966 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., .BOSTON, PLANNING CONSULTANTS BEDNARSKI-FALCONER-STEIN, GREENFIELD, ARCHITECTS CAVY ".L LIBRARY bii rSS. Wk 11 INGTON . •.RD OF BELE !C N Lincoln P. Cole, Jr., Chin, Levi G. Burnell Robert Cataldo Irving H. Mabee George C. Sheldon 'Of INGTCN PLANNING B e= • 1 Arthur E. Bryson, Chm.,1965 Joseph A. Chm.,1966 Evert N. Foyle Roland B. Greeley Natalie H. Riff in is TOWN CO L IL,ITTEE TO S or II, • ITALIZATION OF :»' INGTON CE cg George Holovc.n, Chm. Otis Bra- , Arthur B. Bryson Lincoln P. Cole, Jr. Richard A. Michelson Mrs. Howard Scharfman Raymond Scheublein Lee E. Tarbox Joseph Trani RESIGN ADVISORY GROUP (Executive Co ittee) No .n Fletcher Donald Graha Walter S. Pierce Hideo Sasaki TABLE O P CONTENTS FOREWORD Page SUMMARY REPORT 1 DESIGN AND DESIGN GUIDANCE Design Objectives 24 Existing Visual Conditions 33 Visual Guidelines 44 A Town-Wide Beautification Program . . . 50 Design Review and Control . . . 55 Sign Bylaw Revisions 63 ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT 1975 Activity Levels 66 Zoning Revisions. 79 CIRCULATION Traffic Needs 88 Circulation Plan , .. 98 PARKING Parking Needs _ , 111 Merchant Survey 119 Parking Plan . . . 123 RECONSTRUCTION OP MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE .. . 133 f0 ' I II a , ILLUSTRATIONS Following Page Illustrative Pi- . - 1975 with Railroad ... . . . . .. . . . . . 3 Illustrative Model - 1975 without Railroad . . . . . . . . . 4 Purchases by Residents at - ington ket Area .. . . 6 Proposed Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Circulation P1 . . . . . . . 9 Massachusetts Avenue Beautification 11-12 Massachusetts Avenue Alternates 13 Massachusetts Avenue Cross-Sections 14 Promenade View Towards Green 15 Parking Turnover 11r4iDe . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 17 Parking Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Parking Structure Sketches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Parking Structure Cross-Sections . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Visual Design Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Public Actions Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Design in Lexington Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . 32 Comp. ative Analysis - -iness Centers . . .. . . . . . . . . 33 1985 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Region]. Pattern . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 88 Traffic Vol ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 89 Traffic Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . a 96 Minut- . .n Intersection 109 Parking-Floor Space Relationship 117 D`` %. i i FOREWORD This Comprehensive Report is a compilation of individual reports issued over the past year, revised and updated within the past month, It includes both the visual design studies sponsored by privately-donated funds, and the functional de- sign studies sponsored by municipal funds. This study program was suggested in 1964 by the Lexington Chamber of Commerce, which sponsored a preliminary study. At that time, the Board of Selectmen appointed a five-man commit- tee to handle the study. Since augmented with four additional members, this group ("Town Committee to Study The Revitaliza- tion of Lexington Center"), usually called the Steering Commit- tee, has had the primary responsibility for guiding the direc- tion the studies have taken. The Planning Board, which gave vital support to initiation of the study, has also played an important role in review of and support for the work undertaken. An early recommendation of this study was the formation of an advisory group of design professionals, which has resulted in formation of the Design Advisory Group, many of whose mem- bers have given generously of their time and talents, going be- yond passive review to actively forward ideas and to help in implementing them. Among those involved have been architects, landscape architects, planners, transportation experts, an econ- omist, and a few interested laymen. Establishment of that group is perhaps the first contribution of this program. The Public Works Department, Police, Assessors, Planning Department and Cary Memorial Library all have given important help to this effort. The Board of Selectmen have given a major portion of their time over the past year to this study, and have patiently awaited the results of it before making commitments in the Center, The Town Committee is misnamed, for "Revitalization" is hardly an issue in a Center as healthy as Lexington's. The is- sues are the continuation of vitality in the face of certain change, and the addition of service and symbolic excellence to economic vitality. By acting now, while economic strength abounds, these high objectives can be achieved. 11 II SUMMARY REPORT ON A PLAN FOR LEXINGTON CENTER prepared for the INGTON PLANNING BOARD and the TOWN COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE REVITALIZATION OF ' INGTON CENTER IXINGTON BOARD OF SELE EN LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD Lincoln P. Cole, Jr. , Chm, Arthur E. Bryson, Chm.,1965 Levi G, Burnell Joseph A. Campbell, Chm. ,1966 Robert Cataldo Evert N.. Fowle Irving H. Mabee Roland B. Greeley George C. Sheldon Natalie H. Riff in TOWN COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE REVITALIZATION OF INGTON CENTER George Kolovson, Chm, Otis Brown Arthur E. Bryson Lincoln P. Cole, Jr. , Richard A. Michelson Mrs, Howard Scharfman Raymond Scheublein Lee E. Tarbox Joseph Trani DESIGN ADVISORY GROUP (Executive Co4Hittee) Norman Fletcher Donald Graham Walter S. Pierce Hideo Sasaki February, 1966 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. , BOSTON, PLANNING CONSULTANTS BEDNARSKI-FALCONER-STEIN, GREENFIELD, ARCHITECTS NATURE OF THE PLAN Motivated by impending development of a regional shopping center three miles away in Burlington, by a projected tripling of tourist visitors to the Minuteman National Park, and by dis-satisfaction with the rather ordinary ap- pearance of Lexington Center, a privately-sponsored planning effort for the Center was initiated in early 1964. The March, 1965 town meeting gave impetus to the program by adding municipal funds to aid the planning, and by approving a major widening of the Massachusetts Avenue right-of-way, resulting in a need for guidelines for reconstruction of both the street and the private proper- ties involved. This report summarizes the results of that effort. This is a plan for actions to be taken before 1968, so designed and scheduled that whichever way the presently unanswerable question of railroad continuation is later resolved, there is a logical extension from the 1968 proposals to 1975, and reasonable expectation that those 1975 possibilities can be further developed during the increasingly vague future beyond that. The plan therefore contains explicit • proposals for the next few years, policies for the next decade, and considers generalized estimates for the time beyond. 1975 ESTIMATES1985 ON-‘c S WITH _ WITH p OSI t R.R. R.R • EXPLICIT PROP 1966 PROPOSAL 1968 P poOpOt � 1975 A4s AT 1985 NO NO R.R. R.R. 1 The goals of development in the Center must include business profit- ability, but also must go beyond that. Two equally important goals are ser- I vice to residents and the development of the Center as an appropriate symbol 1 to stand for the community, a Center which reflects what the community is, as well as what its heritage has been. The Center and this plan for it are for all of Lexington, not just for business interests, and the plan's objectives can be achieved only with the joint support of residents through town meeting and businessmen through their investments. IThe future role of the Center will inevitably change, since the Center cannot provide breadth of choice comparable with the proposed Burlington Center, and it is increasingly disadvantaged by location, parking relationships, and rent structure for competition in convenience goods sales. The most likely avenue for retail growth in the Center is in specialty goods selected for the special market Lexington and its neighbors provide, a trend evident today, and inevitable in the future if the Center is to prosper. 3 To gain such business, circulation and parking improvements must be made, at the same time developing a quality in the exterior environment to match the -1- .1 " uality of the goods being sold. A dramatically landscaped promenade linking he Green, the commercial Center, and the civic area is proposed as a major .omponent in developing this environment, to be complemented with careful guid- nce of new architectural development, and with development of pedestrian areas inking parking and commercial structures. The Plan recommendations are that a staged program for landscaped beauti- IIS„ ication in the Center be undertaken; that the -Massachusetts Avenue widening ►e used only in part for traffic, freeing the rest for pedestrians; that the resent compact nature of the Center be maintained through use of multi-level parking structures where necessary; that parking access be improved through >, levelopment of a loop-road system; and that building design be guided through °greement on a Visual Design Plan, dealing with the major elements of design, 'ather than with "style". Each of these recommendations is a major departure ;, , prom what most small commercial areas are doing. These directions are recom- 'ended in the belief that only bold steps can rescue the Center from easy Jo- 'ediocrity, and that mediocrity is inadequate functionally or symbolically for . co unity of Lexington's aspirations and heritage. Pages 3 and 4 are alternative illustrations of what might result by 1975 .f the reco ,ended public actions to 1968 and policies beyond that are fol- .owed. Since these illustrations combine recd endation and projection, many ether alternatives could also be shown, illustrating different private re- ;ponses to these public efforts, and different ways of implementing the sug- ;ested public policies on Circulation and parking. The explicit recou ;enda- :ions and policies are Illustrated through drawings on pages 7, 9, 11, 12, 18 .nd 22. S w',. RY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1968 1975 1985 PROPOSALS POLICIES EXPECTATIONS :IRCUTATION Widen Mass. Ave, 5 feet Continue loop road develop. Major diversion Open L. turn lane Waltham St. Complete Mass. Ave. re- required Reshape Minuteman intersection shaping Reverse Clarke Street Remove some Mass. Ave. parking Open loop road in parking lots 'ARKING Pave lot N. of railroad Maintain 3i:1000 parking Higher ratio Build Waltham-Muzzey structure ratio required Improve Clarke-Muzzey parking (Probable structure N. of Rev."fringe" zoning to require Mass. Ave.) parking ICTIVITY Encourage specialty sales Expand co ,lercial area Nearby apartment Expand co: lercial area development 3EAUTIPICATION Execute 1st stage promenade Complete Center beautifi- Beautification norm. Execute 2nd stage improve, cation municipal function )ESIGN GUIDANCE Control sign brightness New design review method Move extensive Permit some overhanging signs design review Adopt "fringe" yard require. Adopt Visual Design Plan Expand approach town-wide J -2- H l^'� .,to full r r lac, 3 1 rti►:►.,-c.n r z . 1 J ,.. mwy 'gy N,u�f� OM' it o5,7'771•17:654, p� ` P `' , wA t r s Q G ,��,i h ��* 4"11 Kit"udi 4"4 • Mtiv �+ ril. .,, ,1e.,,,,,;zi t ., G 1frl 4S7` T1' 411171 rill) IV ill L viii4. ,s,k w to.r,t,,i 1, 0 ., L) 141 • ' Ill .,A 4,4:111pm, , �;;�i,AWIII,f9 ttb 1/V N 4`g Ego lig I i I Y� M II w f gi {'f 1 � M �k i , , ...-. : . ,.,, ,P "1 ailk ,„0,k,lii,?1,,N,A , : i. frict Ili 104 Cin l '[ w,�. ".."IM..ii AN,i "1..w.. l" Ik R. i,�t c' �u`.iV ;, "'' 1� N 0.1 9.1 • J A : w,�„ def ��(� 1J� " 1� M hr fit, 4, 0 .. I .;"y[�A,I.,,,--; ` �i,if Va F- Wil# • ry� 10 ; ti,•,1 t r I ;- 041 A .8: .0,,,,,le-A,,,44,J„ P, 1- - , ...,„,4,40,: . . -. , , i ---4,.‘,,,,,iv, ',' '''. IllitT--,,. , 1 ' ' t' IllieIritre"Olt Z. y,,, ,, -▪ . 1 ,- ... -., . ri clo,.,,.., ,,:„11 ito•viv '' jeit•I''' ' , ty24.ti , ' cp - „GL., 1 1 ,,14...,....i.1 41,13,-,‘ ,,,o,i, 1 ,,,Atill, o'lli•. t 1 MPR JEr,IW, W4444.1° M 4 Vf�w1111/11 f u Mw�A •XIli f� J 0. ,,-'a� ,I .70f r`p ' O I" 1 'OPlkii ' 4 n It I.YAv F111" "'f lir ti b w�y1''VIAr IMm y, I a lP�IA 'Q G O J• d' s I w114 1 M d "tiR11 M..v.. ry� ' ° b "° �� �+'� t5 . pm a 11 tr ' '� • �L SNI _ �Ui . 40 S.'Sitvill64, lila „livrex 1 III Iii'W II Gl rt M� IIS f. %° � 1.1,1'�61 •d wm ry iso A i y _"a • ' Itt q � '"�� p i .�•+l 4 '�,� � V.. +ly[r� d X49•d 1S �,g • r IN 1 * . v . y r'{� . Mesa" il4will ,x...10,,,tticti ei, .... . #,,.., . , I ,, En Id f 41;ill 1114. . ,wilit ...,. i � SpAr �� tol 1 ' �'! . .Fier1,E 1'„, �� 1 k"='' - �� r i!,7, IV . . I-4 -..... ______ go*, 1 ' Ilig' 1 :-:- • r;11,ti:41.,,-,elli 1`1111' oval . 11Pli'klillt ',41,41,1,1 , ;11 11111*".4# ',0 -1" *TAD' 1 . r 1 r , r..1 .cisitit7rre.,,, roll"qi1,1 'fr ei 6 , .41141' ' a-4:4 0.7 1 1 , , s i• ''. sr .,46 '...1 IA I!' ii, „..,v, ,, 1 ,1,. iti 1 ., io..14 .. :, ... ,511,;,_ . _..141,..741..0., iiiv ..-...rrlit,1 4s, :,i.o,i4 70,' � ��° ,t� ,;,nib. - :.0 � Iiiiv,,,I, . het . , ._. i .. 1 'Wakb . '¢! .' - �. r"erre; ....3151:"S• ��a---+ms � z Ty?y,�� 44�� ,i� i _ IfE d .,� f i + E • E'IP 11 l �11 1 lk #� w N I + m I' L(Mn, +„ - Qm` R , °f=--17.--''C''nr If M rte' t°PI� x.11aili * ' . '1.2 401. vl t ....j 1 m,Q��...� a �r aj �I�, , ,,,,,�l" o °op V/1.,�°."Ni,�P'�I 1" �} [L., L [. 01 , ` 1 ' rf!e 1 � r�1 ' '1.1/ 'pq� °h" rt r( f i. ��., ,�j� 1 a r 111.; �l1i , I.' - ,, IX . o 4 ";' ah n,.4 �wti�°� u 'p Wr�aYJ• r. 41* 1 � r Y• ° ��iMl � �. „,-,,,ii k r•.y 4102,0k"J,f �a •f l 1 it ' l(�, � `� 1• 1r, d r o ;"' "' a f ��`v..�,JY � �~` �t A""1---""-.-., 1�4u� �, L � (r,��J�..17t11y�.�SI�. ` ` �T7/kpf? v_ .4,t p ,V7'l1 CZY"— fi)-1,'"7•L t/i• '1r .r.1 � , ""1- '";V� -"Y P I if'L k. '.. Ailivi .),,, A ili),I ..'.• lilt/'--,,,.i tri:11.14 r,,,t- 0)",t4-9 kr .04,111, /..,"sN.,_ , .= � � ".li 4 L3 fi :N: .t(•1'I. o f t l '4 "J 1414 4W r r_ �• 4 r , j 1� ,40, 1141:i iit,,,i it,4,,,,,:.t. .4:4 risakit4,tk1,2a,.:,_a„.•__,,, ...".-_.--t.f.:, ...1.-_.••-:1---1 I, 1;14 Ei ;''i N IL "4,1- INF.*/ vn,41/1"1' A - P, : ht11 `J� ;1t\ ' iiiI,',..'' 4 ', " ✓ '': ' ' 'I1 , t J r b..------ r ...,;.- -----,--,74:-k - •Eji, = r pi-^+ Y 1 1------;:._..--- 4�tf , ... a f { 7: Y _ i — Q t ' --4:( 1-4';'.. d'rri'2;2; t �t1 - CA' '- - - "-' - 3 ''''''' .- -,4 , irrit-Dfil-rfn,0 _ N. .--.14.011 I ' a- : w,-1:) � :.: _ - � ��fie �'� 4 y� l r:< r ,1_,z_i: ..ir.,,,,r___ii_.,:;.=;._,=;_.,..,::tiril..,,:,..4...._;„.0.1"... .t....i._,:_....:.,_:.;_r_ i _ ,...,;-:._ -..,00 _:hi!,,_4,:::__,:,1,....,,,.r.rw-{_„ei__,4_ i.4,,,,,,,f 1 . .r .r wr ra... +� 1-r.:( w r L r 1. ■ 1 k :___put 4 _ �Mm ..a 1t� ..* .. ,1". A _1 111 ,.p __.. , ._ . ' '+ `:. 4' ;, ' 111 ��' z;i ��l ��� 1i 11 jf• 4111.. ..-,!--. .,....h. . ay• • E_ _ 1, T ' ly7 i �`F .If :e' 1- 'ter'4 4 S 4.....p..., :► A.. # • 4 r ..., ,_ _: = .._4,...- * - 4AA. 7 I , I, ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL �- I975 WITHOUT RAILROAD «__ nns _ _ a ACTIVITY DE VELO MENT Projected Town growth from 31,000 residents in- 1965 to an estimated 40,000 in 1975, coupled with steadily rising per capita incomes, means that retail purchases by Lexington residents is likely to swell from about $53 million per year today to about $75 million per year in 1975. (In all cases, figures are in constant-value 1963 dollars.) The new regional center at Burl- ington is likely to capture $7 million of that potential, leaving $68 million in purchases by Lexington residents to be divided between Lexington Center and all other locations. If the Center's -share of the remaining $68 million is the same in all broad product lines in 1975 as it was in 1963, (the most re- cent year accurate data are available for) the Center's sales would grow from a current annual level of $10 million to $14 million annually in the mid-70s. The-million projected 1975 tourists might spend $1 of their $8 estimated daily expenditures in Lexington Center, adding another $1,000,000 sales. On this basis, "the potential for a 50% expansion in Center sales by 1975 can clearly be seen, despite Burlington, provided that the Center remains as attractive relative to its competitors as it is today, and provided that suitable loca- tion for this much growth can be provided. Similar analysis of non-retailing employment lead to the conclusion that such employment could rise from 550 persons in 1963 to 800 in 1975. Conversion of sales and employment to floor space and acreage estimates, then to physical designs, clearly shows that appropriate-space, not market, is the major constraint on growth in the Center, provided that- efforts are made to make the Center attractive enough to meet its potential. Retailing demands high visibility, and few businesses are interested in upper-floor suburban lo- cations, especially where parking is restricted. First-floor space and its re- quisite parking can't be provided for the entire 50% growth potential without danger of undesirable intrusion of business into residential areas. Accord- ingly, zoning, parking and circulation provisions are being scaled to 1/3 growth of commercial activity in. the Center rather than 1/2, or expansion from about 290,000 s.f. of commercial space today to about 380,000 s.f. in 1975. Some expansion of commercial activity will take place by infilling in present commercial zones, but commercial district extensions are also required to permit the programmed 1/3 growth. Re-zoning to the South is advocated, where admixed pattern of activity and structural types already exists, and Also to the east, where the present zone boundary is spatially irrational. Re-zoning to the north is proposed simply to rationalize the legal status of the existing municipal parking lot. Two types of commercial zone are advocated, one unchanged from the pres- s ent ,,.Center regulations, another similar to the present C-1 District, with yard space and off-street parking required for each structure. Government, utilities, and other institutions also occupy space in the Center. Town offices and Police Headquarters are again cramped, suggesting I , probable expansion of provisions for those functions. Cary Memorial Library looks forward to expansion. None of these changes will involve large land areas, however. Both electric and telephone substations are located where they impose limitations on Center expansion; neither is realistically movable, i and both can expand functionally without new land. Residences in the heart of the Center have been debated and rejected, but population growth peripheral to the Center through development of apartments is both likely and, if -carefully guided, desirable both' for commercial support and to provide for an otherwise unobtainable housing choice. -5- Iga 1, ,M ' PURCHASES BY RES 1 DENTS OF ,1: LEXINGTON � I i' 80le 1 � 1 „ I 70a _.rll l TOTAL PURCHASES BY �ik‘-rN 1 il LEXINGTON RESIDENTS ' N 0 .0 00 S�S ..\311 RCS► ii . 11 C PURCHASES IN BOSTON, OTHER SHOPPING CENTERS, �.� I,� LEXINGTON —OUTSIDE OF CENTER, 00w 'AND 1 BS.-1 3014 , TOTAL SALES,. IN LEXINGTON SALES` TO PARK TOURISTS 10 i t d f, F ".". n t " $963 19 67 1971 1975 p YEAR, —6 = r 3. �R. am , , (`(n‘1 - 0-0------ GV-_ti __ -'c1`__ --- -\ \\ „:„ =_„:„ _ __ __.__,____._. ...,,_ - co, _.T._ „___-_,.: __ -___ .._ ..,7_----t„-; T__\\. \ ji3 --/- -3,\::„). a1IIuII1I 4 T ,I _____. t .....,----.___ \-\\,,) tg :— - _. - @ em -�.�..-'. . ACMY! LE _ .„4.1 0 'ilio 0 WASB I iciistoi V - .. � . Via � �� 4 " , 'Cl 1 44-,..v.-, k- '., . -V ' -''.1-'--, -----, -'„,,'-'-, '''. -"t.--,Itk ,-.A-4-1--4-,F, --1 \-- Cii • O • _JtE I ---e �_ 1� i .:'-'.,\ '-_,„____ - -v.1_ ,, _ ,------`-= 4 -.°1-,- -e- ;-.1, ; -'."-3� vlREll1°ps9,0 I O I my : l 1• �.� , � _ " • 04 I N►TYpNp �.� PROPOSED ZONING I t�' "r I4.4.-- --,-.a. $ .`� /,/� ::7757::::::2 IIOPC3CD C PNOPOSEG C4`. .--K.,-.3-3, .'-.3 .,.- ..11-___---;*-"Y„ --„rial ---i!‘-.,---.,,,w).„ 't-1,._,,. „33 r74▪ Ci-l4I31t F II R31.*1UCrr.I4;I5..-..cD4,__2 g t.1-,_,,„1G0,,-,-k,,7,,=,.-1 s,__,:_',iS,,,I4V-I.X_TNu-.. -.C.r0 DK3a t• ,10 o4.„.1.-/.. -cA-4,f-1- lT 7.Na __ ,- LEXINGTON CENTER .Ii.i lliQkpe__41i I - 1pRl7T _ r \ 7TWtl PN!►AIIFN laA THE LUIN[TOM PI.1 m. ppANp ANO TK aONM[T°N(pfT _, gg - 8 8 fE�p11A1MLL7•%LI.E 77 Irj Noi[TlCT7.G[[II�.IS . Ot?aU..pfETT►GNY7[TS7 C IRCULATI ON Like most old market centers, Lexington Center is at the hub of a system of radial routes, with about 85% of the traffic on weekdays just passing ,r � , through. Population growth, growth in auto usage, and shifts in employment u' and shopping locations will increase present volumes in the Center despite ef- II forts such as Worthen Road, but will not increase volumes in the next decade 1 , to such an extent that careful design of present rights-of-way cannot prevent undue congestion. The Massachusetts Avenue-Waltham Street intersection is the key to rea- o " `. sonably free traffic movement, since it is the first location in the Center to become overloaded. When unable to cope with its traffic load, it backs up traffic into the "Minuteman intersection" at Bedford St.-Massachusetts Ave.- Clarke St., creating a second jam. To prevent the Waltham Street tie-up, three things are required: 1) Careful design of the intersection. Projected 1975 vol Hes can be handled by three fronting lanes eastbound, two westbound if parking conflicts are eliminated, and two fronting lanes northbound on Waltham Street. Provi- sion of a third westbound traffic lane has no bearing on the intersection ca- pacity, since the westbound lanes are "overdesigned" anyhow. They carry less traffic than the eastbound lanes in tIe evening peak, but must be given more time to give left turns into Waltham Street a head start. 2) Careful design of lanes leading into the intersection to insure that ae, the intersection is fed traffic smoothly. By computation, one lane on Waltham Street and two lanes each way on Massachusetts Avenue will suffice if their width is adequate. East of Waltham Street, Massachusetts Avenue has more than adequate width, West of Waltham Street the travelled lanes require widening by about 10 feet at their narrowest point in order to match the theoretical ca- pacity of the Waltham Street intersection. I(- 3) Diversion of as much traffic as possible from the central portion of Massachusetts Avenue. A loop rohd system would help achieve this, by providing direct access to the Center's parking areas from the radials leading to the Center without use of the Massachusetts Avenue-Waltham Street intersection. Five moving lanes at the Waltham ,Street intersection, four lanes else- where on Massachusetts Avenue, and the loop road system should give Lexington Center less congestion in 1975 than it experiences today. No other configura- tion without massive land-takings can do better. Sometime after 1975,. should traffic growth continue, a jor effort may be required to provide a means of carrying through Bedford Street-Massachusetts Avenue traffic past the Center. Several feasible routes exist, one of which is illustrated. The n,jor costs of these circulation improvements are for the added Massa- chusetts Avenue right-of-way, already appropriated, and the cost .of parking relocation, not only from along Massachusetts Avenue, but also from the por- tions of the loop road system passing through parking areas. Major landtaking costs for the loop road are not likely to be justifiable for some years, ..king its completion dependent upon fortunate opportunity, adroit detail design, or late stage progra +lag. The largest problem to be overcome in developing this circulation system is that of habits of mind in conceiving of a whole new way of approaching the Center, where the present "rear" is changed to the "entrance", and where "short-cuts" now discouraged by parking lot design and one-way streets become encouraged as means of congestion relief. -8- • V A pA S z • • • o1.•oN CI 7C YVit 4rRit* �� 1rdG sJe�OII o C) ' • � -r •'•,t pOaa f, - Aa �• i�� rare x ®� NOR'-NKR" •d� N iY t+ADp No. mesuwpiss■qq.■■....rr....n■u..u...r.u.......r .O • {r 4111111111; ry.ON WAY i S 1111.1**4""' -- .....\' - ` ' 2 Loa. Nu II e N�•irr• r = C F i • r _� c a o r F ! .Co. : Q C r.■a..■uy.■a...4snr..1 ROAD ° f-------7C). r•VIHi•ROOK� l Z I F _i x wAYMONo •r. i- 50 ; Y J \\\*N.''"-----i t t � } 3 u r N na^� ; • r X OrRx•r • Ili f CIRCULATION PLAN [/N SIDEWALK WIDENED O �+( LEXINGTON C ENTER STUDIES !TAFFY wioEHED Mm HB REYDVED ,VWa II i° THE PROMENADE , I o A 100 foot right-of-way on Massachusetts Avenue most of the way through 0 the Center (90 feet at the Central Block) has been assured by recent town meet- 0 ing actions. Of this, 56 feet will be required by 1975 for moving traffic and aI the traffic flexibility gained through a single on-street parking lane. To con- tinue present sidewalks, a total of thirty=two feet are required for pedestrian ' movement, light poles, fire hydrants, etc. The remaining twelve feet are dis- u . cretionary, for use either as on-street parking space, or to provide an extra- i ordinary pedestrian promenade. It is reco ,ended that four feet of this discretionary space be used to widen the sidewalks on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue, enough to permit Qy planting boxes and other pedestrian amenities (tree planting might require major 'i'r; utility relocation), as well as freer movement. The remaining eight fleet df discretionary space should be used for a deeply landscaped pedestrian promenade on the northside of the Avenue, with a double row of trees, smaller plantings, I benches, and other furnishings, giving the historic, commercial, and civic com- ponents of the Center a linkage strong enough to be comprehended at the speed and scale, dictated by the automobile. At the same time, it allows creation of variety and interest at pedestrian scale, as well as "eddies" out of the streams 1 of movement where one can pleasureably pause. This powerful element would help I" give a distinctive character to Lexington Center, helping differentiate it from the multitude of commercial areas now similar in appearance but representing VN coy,~,unities far different in character and heritage. I"' The new buildings replacing the Hunt and Central blocks will be one story, I rather than three. This, coupled with separation across the avenue by 100 feet ; ' rather than 75, will reduce the sense of enclosure of the Avenue. The promenade = and its trees will help re-enclose it, as well as helping join the two sides, I both physically and visually. Most important, however, is the establishment of an environmental character calculated to attract and sustain specialty goods enterprises, and a character appropriately symbolic of the entire co 'unity. The thirty-four parking spaces which, but for pedestrian improvements, could be (and presently are) provided on-street on the north side, are not insignifi- cant, but their replacement off-street is a small part of the overall parking expansion required over the next decade, and well justified by the benefits of pedestrian area improvements. For an interim period following development of I the promenade, parking can be retained on both sides of the Avenue, with the off-street parking has �I° been hdeveloped. Thea space gained gowould hthen ebeadivided between traffic space and the recommended widening of the sidewalk on the south side of the Avenue. The complete landscaping program advocated, including both sides of the Avenue, work in Depot Square, and work in the parking area south of Massa- chusetts Avenue, will cost an estimated $300,000, with strong probability that half of this will be supported through a federal grant under the Urba eaut - atio,n .pg . ,„ The first stage beautification (see page 23) will cost $60,000. On an annual cost basis, including the annual cost of the 34 necessary relocated parking spaces and an allowance for added snow removal and other maintenance ef- forts, this first step will cost less than $15,000 annually. Beautification of Massachusetts Avenue is but one component in a proposed program which would include efforts in Depot Square, in and between parking areas, and in outlying commercial centers as well, following a careful analysis of their needs. ala. - 10 v° . ' ,I .. lirrtt ,r d w� 1 '�aw.r. fill w'' hY+iklJ W r- w4uYb .1L° �;,a .m k r ' r '10 'i l'-1.-1'.1%,°4-411"°4"7774F0- 4 a "411'1.!Rrrirel,IL-r"` � _ 4y .r =-M t f�� �ra 1rew Y " xi � ' u� � � 1M, "� ii �e�' 'r i,i1 � s�wr �! � e'1P '+(d 4Yw4 : ''' "wy.w, ' r !Ow 5, r..r t._ , a I° - I. IV7 r� � E r i � 1� C "r,k � � Y r Y � ■ 1 IL Ii NORTH SIDE OF MASSACHU! le. ., If ,., 4• -javf., �� F. i1.11-7 II . -,21-eth.Tr' ••••7'- •°.57 - 4 + GR r V'. - r,I4 ...1121 ill ' 111 1 t° 111111 ,.•fa i:..'• �■ t3r;• ■.IP"''mow '°r';`ri.1l. l'4 ■■..r�u ��;fyp y :- , CI- ,;1.,gilimill,,,.! .... 'f.,I=1111,' 'W y G rryuo• 7AIL t 'l.i�■f s'ip--To"..-1 1 ft 11: ' 1 Jill ,�•f ; terpip� :I I I r J�i,t i t` �.11:!;. -f 24 tn,,�, ...,41 4 1, t ut• a v MIME r , t F.{, - .+r x .1 '1 11.% 1 1 i Y' 4'rs� ���� ,•:',,I:+_ i. `., 11 6m,P .. I'.l..ell A 1 ,`,g x ' " 1 �l-ger`tr�y.g se/1- xt PYI}r 4�af_ .. 1� i+; •I, 9 4 Tr— roV �'= d i f•:. * •1 ft" uq 1 Pl '� 5 y l'''E}T itis j� �,l *"I;r -raft'J D nl7 x1., .15 Ib's1-, .t Sy L it 1„, •f•._'I,+11'I ' 11� '•u,m''• ' i;�n(: l' 1 1 1-""t .24 3,'' ` 1.f,� •11- B t J..•<..: 1, '1 ; .6�1 i. • 4 l• ;t1,,z a +.1 f '.t 1.E n.6• -.� +[ y t a 1 1' '1�r N! , • D ;1 �j"° of 1 , 1�' `,Y1 '�.jJ, ' I` u 1 • I } 1 gI ,d F el-, iya£Y^.k-i-i111.::t t �� el {ft S t q. y{¢ s e {t �t ' •�' { 7 '' . ',ii j. A■ 1�1 r 1 I ' b .1 . .u', I r 1 . . 111 I'- 1'C .1. . 1 1 3 1 1•. yt (,'1" u 4 1.4 ytk .. .,y •91 • ,,, r !,5�'8 '_41,. t :A.•,t, i •..-•,Zr' 1 a.•4 ,;fi. 1 '�, I u ar t' ? 1 -r4044?' f'{1:. a;: ,1 1-.....:,- Y m 11"'1 .4 J�k, r•At i1'w �.. 1 u t` "uy• l'irM .hi_ 4,r hl 1, :'"1 1 tl'° ,'.sij' T 4 1� �,.„4:..,, }° rn'� J T W a. . � ` {{.+�f -'}j,S. •} l' j'i', 1��' � r �����X"' I,he X� { ,.., t • 4'•1 .Pr } aY r • 4,...,4'.!fr co prt`[i 1 4 ...$4•4°.....”, � 1'M ,�p ... .way, r �..1 1 �}t+. t l 1 sa 11 1 5 .l i 1 -y J a 1 Id 1�y1 1 +p. . s,,.r t, , ,„ ' S P, 1.. qI' 43 , h, " 1. 1 � t Is �, tl Ika 1 • 4 _'s sN 14 . 1 3 1 � {`. ' 4 r '1 I r V•t"'" °a° �1 1 _ 6 al ° � � r 1 r. :Ti .'t A u � rI Elmo I���. t.�:�r 1' z^�1.s.. �'y �kliF R"' „........-., � ��i J R e w ° IA ^ � I � � .mow.rww. p�',��v�"^^,^�� �I__�.�.....,�� ��'��t� ,Nh. Ipl ���x; � U iil ��r� 14 v,l. r•+nm�pw� � �^��we:wrw '"'"1""„ida;�e "G..a�� r�w,.Vhi� ,-+�%an4wwr� ur 'rlw pEjlrprwn �r .„,id�' .ry• ^r a,.y�cwt i• ,$l '�,”}i 1 1 � 1 t t 1 m��l lig r t p1 rr .1,•! , J �.. 1,1'x'• 11 .1� ' 1U 1 1 I e. 9 S , '� I .f: Iu.P•Yw�!,(imWY».a,w'yW'dl.rmrFMwi+.w uv.V+tl1.W ar M,�tlYf Y9M.sM�wvowu"w rvp w14C I,YXr11•Y,w�!o'tn.wdw tn�ee �✓r w.il.��"rvhs°v, ➢�.W, v na u'm�u a. dpw 10 0 qO 20 50 40 t `1-m.:,, iLii '• 1 SCALE 1N FEET — I"i= -`• I . l MA S S A C H U S E T r. ECONOMIC' DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., PI na „ o io V r �\ , � bil oll r�..w ' .9 �..w e� w + wr h�.. aYN �FI IctvuF t ,y +ivL.,,' y M w N ,-,41-4.,_,,,,,_-.., � " IIa�,..: `1," W 'n s r N.4 1:"r1'.114'� 17Mek�c��grP767h9: p q p fI..-. A!Mv -r.. m11 y , h w a � iF� tP l iMw �/ �irt,,l____ 'i �4I �ar� ins'. �,,,..,[,,x,2„,,,',1-.00°A.. — —4E4147' wa yp' r � �m. _ �r w w v 1111 .V� •7, —� ELEVATIONo 4 , r I ,.,,,w hM im,r.�.olrs �.rua,N�o- „rN ,��Q� e� .,,�Nww ��Nd-��ru�rra arv.ia.��wwt.ou�d�rw.,fir ash rm ,�,a�uuw.w, r wawrx;ai:�m wu, •'aN;iw«' W a rN �$ �4 �u pI�MWIY 1 ��Pilp I rl 1 + iiiw y Ia G' r rd I Sr � b r g: iif IIy "" ^Ia I �°w ,^wry,. gra IN 7 a N g -u, ,S. ���,R 'WC 'IIA 'G. y aArena �:4,,,j.:1$ pg_. YNr. d��C p w 7., -.11g6 �q'�tlA6lr .tl� � 11.::,12411e �gW I yank_ nlp e .�r� 'Asti� �� ® ,y i9 � hrbF�.. ryVe 1 p4�r $ 1,0L-',. re, fl t f R , :Par 1 s nm F $ i r F u Ci s 1e. Tr b d 9�y Ym 1 u.y 6 � 4 ag m� $ "14:044",..• � lwwm "' m� `�a ii -,?z,`,1141 -,,,Ar,"� 6k �`"�$,.w �C 9 a"4 �j i„;,‘„„4,7,11N �'�. 1 ! /Of iiIIIIIIII 4 G. ko. rcr ( ay ' �W 'A' gr ti ar ¢ oa 9 F �a r '� s 1 , a w ® � m 1111 rxi .wy:�4 ne,€�A� ,�di.4qrt0wroN.ao I:.v ,i, p {4 44 i 0'' 9 ., va,eg qqillimet vUIt ' ° a w � " 101t vi � r . � ,. e I➢m " �4. ��sg , ` I `Nm, iV ...1, ,e 4.5, s }i LawflInn," '141' 14'1111111111i °(r ill'„�S ma1 4 ,� l4 �"'� tfi. '7e° r' "dL� e '1-.. n. m a � iV S„„ ""r"^wu. _ ir«nmnrw1i ".14'i tp i YM1p , m X . A. SV p ' i.i',.,1ia. 1,1-4....;, -rd4i4"4 ,^S p firil o :, 1. , 4' ,7 0. i" , 'i , . N ,w�� 1 " � � 711'7 'k �n�r1w ir �hAPwP�W1drrmwwA4 R�4w� aA Pw � x � lir i1 N r Ime�� � a �" ®8m4 „ ctrX , � w� . i� I r 0 F. . N F � •ti • � pea ii ,. 1,7 yF w ,,,, ems. F, A l®rALc td -ST I N, ARCHITECTS ..e+ - + • I I; [ 1 [ : !: T: ! am 1 lb I P'- A i � •' '%ii ;i�� -,411L• ��ir� 1 V ��� t�. I • ;l- 'f-!'.%.' Imo_:; ��. -��5 � •`: a�= �•if- j ``- Lia , ie --------------- 0 = __�-__- fl 0 mm 0 l oC T T T T T T 1 .•.... • .. .e ...�. __--- o - k di • r. E 000000 of INTERIM STAGE •• Vtl � *$MAhilETII AVENUE ; � 1 Y 1 U it „ N It f / I f g I I III II 1 I -:.'li �'i. -ter%i C_11j� +� _ t �� `��_ V -.;19 ./ a\ 'f • , •< i,✓. /ti.w- r`1;: �.1j� ���� �� ii 11' SII X91 "� i {= �f�j -,1•1'.1.!,:. �r9� V. :v. :�4/ :r- �h�- �'< w1, �1 rr 1�, �\f! r �i;%- \\lp- _\111.�c-- � � .;;'‘g%? - [ii, ,l o • d as dr dr V. 1 Ri T T T T T T 1 EMT.aoPQ�e�m�o_G O • 0 0000F=Er . rg 1 1 ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT I . , 1 Lir ,v MASSACHUSETTS AVE. AT HUNT BLOCK : 00 '0 0 e r 1r I „„.... I. 1 F 1Y ., i EXISTING 0964) I IV i I I I II i, i 1 ',,,,,, ?LI "'"I, 1 l' II I ":,.-ta. .f.-..,• • ..-,-A,:,, 4.-..:A- .4.:7-,.,-1 ---'7',"-t7,:4 '''' !1`, I ;,—, ..--..:,....' 4:--_,.--E.: 7-.6. -.7---.• 7.-... INTERIM ` u II I III 1 1 ' i f.---• ...,,. . 4..* ',pow I .1 I 111 1[ .1.--r ‘.7."--.0 ,,i'llm.,. .—,..-...... 44*.• Il I^ I I u I _„ir se” I j In V 01 ULTIMATE vi i LASSACHUSETTS AVENUE ., 11 CROSS SECT IONS 1 ....,..... -4' 41 317 CA*,14 . , ....... ....y 011Mrlel.k=4 aw ,a.L. .. ...... ,-..! =L .-- ----1 ,_. . — ii) /..0.4.00*. i . L, rp.... • ,I3,ilr-_--..,--e----- ., _.. 1 %a 1 ':•' - „..., -41 ... - -_ ,'a-• -t ..)4 t •T'4.. ff .... isr ., I. %( -M. tr 'c. ._ .1, .,..- ,,-,i . -4." - .., 1.--- ..-.4 J, ...,_ / -4 i I, .. ... e.41".; • I )1/ '•i i ali \FIVi iblegeo4e_.it,'.(044111( -- — '4' ''..4--'-'- - - / lit 0...i, • -711111tAtL4 -.41.7-it-%:kupl.z 45.04e. 4;0- ** v C It - Si - ''''2'1,01 littlf.... 1:1:144 ' ( I ' 10.if ... - .7.40,. ...II f . "iic--•^46741' :, .--,1;,..111?"-...,,,v.,-;;I.," ,cf•- 11," ,,o1r,zfq. 4 -7,1k4 A e , .„,..d„,,,,,..:tie.p.......,_,•:- .44-, , ,iv.„..rir_::,-,k/..: : fil,,v„..-..: , _- . _ 4,7- _ ,.... - x 4 ".11-'4,:lifilii14# Ag •-.1Ltta ,,,,,r....--- .• ......... , _- c-- - -: , . .• V" •. 4. ... -c e - 4 ''-'-' — - -'-':.-41 ;V.V. % 414k.(V.' foci%v4,,v4a.•,,,,,...;;,,,si;:..,4Ari.:,:f.y. 1_, ,,,,,,,,,,,, .,,:, . . ..,..c 4....a.,_--. ._ -, *N, ., ...w. 0.-A:.--L4]..w...., kvt I'L.,•,.,, ,-\-.6.. ,Z1'...-'.....7,.. .,6%--.':,,,•,-,,--...7 r ,'•,•.'-'-;.:. ,. i 0- -'''' ' ,,,,;,-`7.' I. . ‘• :-. \-4- i _ ,--i; •%. , _-,,-„_.Ayr-.7.4,74.;Wols- ,atkii7-:_",..,.: i,',.'40-•li'-P.:.--.---',1" .;;e1-- RV, .40111,e; 4:66-' i.'a - .- - _. .----,,.€ -.A.-_•-•,e_ . _ -iirik..TtNir....., -.b .4:..i."1„,"'•--__-e...'.f4,;:- - lit'it' til- 4.' ','_ _. 4. -- -- - it --._.f4,..A.---Hig_ '-1,--"...i.117A V.r^ . ',,,..ii t-• ,'-,-,-- -- -.try ,_ , . k - r , ‘ ii _ -•Itt . - '',....:...ilk 1 .4 11, • - -•-. . -' "'-' '-- , A ..Te f -,..1.- t,A.,.= 4 •=171 1 ,• , 1). •N . 6 (sift ..‘v ='4:••.`'A, 111-=`;. -F...,- _- -= . . 1 q 7...._-- . 1,42r r ; .iik '..-_-.-._ -,...- - '' -k. 1 ,y1;.`':-..41 -ii".r- i • • • Ul I Ili Az ijite lilit- ziatinlez-4, : airw,,,,521117. ii I qr7iity il--•. : 41. A 41_..„:,i-1.,9 1 1 ,f,..071i-= i . -: - iom.wz,„r - i,Iii. : re76 Aiitioll If I ,-; .n, '•_• MIA ....,911*, i ..01, '2r_tir'-,x -144,, 0 =12W-11"- if :.4.1--ii 10--11411414 14 , ,,. ..' 44,.. .4 . -_....-N •f __-•pr-1,._„. .-.7.--_-------Ii_4-..7.---_--;_;ariL_ z-1., _ - , . - ..._1 IL at- -:w.-. 1 Fitt _ka 1 -- v -4---,-• --'. -- 1,,,,- .,--”L"...1•1.11...'_ ,.. ,-1%,,o1-,----vt.----.- ----r,..„4:x.7.4.-,:_ illirt, -4.....:.'.-.. ,. .-- -.1.70,--qt-. -'---1 --2t‘''.----K.--"_410:::: ,- .----. ., ---•1.- 1 f filltft-'41 '7'A•t- 1.1!V.....d ra.....,...-1 vii,r,ow.-.Al"-:.--rt.r.-Ar7r..-'-'7.-"* «fri- i ;:::f 6.,:i .-4!'"•'-' ''''. .-.7.i;'tiva_-, :,-, ...-___. ...?...1% -...-'' II' i-- .......„-. _-.. iffee. - .... VIEW . TOWARDS n— REEN Rendering by George Conley PROMENADE ,jNu`r PARKING There are about 3i parking spaces available in the Center to service every 1,000 square feet of co , ercial floor space. In Belmont Center, there are 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet; in Burlington, the ratio will approach 9 per w . 1,000 Square feet. ,In hard-hit Woburn, the ratio is 2:1000. It is conserve- :ive to say that in the future, at least the present parking/floor_ space re- ! : Lationship must be maintained to keep Lexington Center competitively conven- Lent. In areas on the edges of the Center (proposed to be zoned C-1) , this is a private responsibility, since parking there serves only the i ediate abut- ;ors, s` and zoning change is proposed to ensure that the responsibility is ob- d served. In the heart of the Center, however, parking is a public function, since each space is of general utility, serving a<,ny destinations. 1111 Within the area of public responsibility, there are nearly 1,000 parking II spaces today, half of them publicly provided, Progra Hed growth to 1975 will require net addition of nearly 300 spaces to maintain present parking-floor space relationships, and nearly 100 more to offset parking removal by private , :9 ;onstruction and by the proposed Massachusetts Avenue program. Municipally-owned space north of the railroad should be paved and have ,oth auto and pedestrian access improved as a first step. The chaos of pri- sate lots between Clarke and Muzzey Streets should be rationalized by munici- ial acquisition. If the abuttors object, zoning should be changed so that adequate parking there will be provided in conjunction with any new construc- tion. Following those two actions, improvements become more difficult, since they involve a choice among acquisition of' sound commercial structures, devel- lpment at great distance from the Avenue (few today will walk more than 500 4r Peet in this scale of center), or vertical development, a startlingly new no- tion for a suburb. Simple cost analysis shows that with high-value land, as Ln the heart of Lexington Center, it is cheaper to go up than out. Two struc- tures are advocated, one north and one south of Massachusetts Avenue. Since the size, shape, _and location of the structure north of the Avenue depends ipon the railroad future, that must wait, but detailed design of the structure advocated for the space between Waltham and Muzzey Streets should begin as soon as possible. The capital costs involved in public provision of parking are very sub- I stantial, as high as $1500 per space in a parking structure. At $0.05 per 7': lour, customers would pay about half the net cost of the proposed parking pro- ;ram over a 20-year period. The resultant ann ;1 subsidy of $20-$40 per space :an perhaps be justified in terms of tax return on co ercial structures and Ln terms of better service for residents, but need not be. An, increase in peter rates to $0.10 per hour would provide income sufficient to cover all :osts of the parking progr= ., with no burden on the tax rate, and with negli- ;able effect on customer willingness to use the Center. Parking turnover rates indidate needs for the various types of parking in the Center. Of critical concern is the proportion of quick-turnover spaces, ! � since these are the most difficult to develop. Projected growth and shifts in the nature of business in the Center suggest net addition of about 20 such spaces, primarily in the "fringe" areas where convenience outlets are most probable. Time limits on Massachusetts Avenue might reasonably be lowered to 30 min-- .rtes to ensure proper use of those spaces, while more distant parking areas and the top level of any parking structures might allow full-day parking for mer- :hants and their employees. A two-hour limit for the bulk of spaces would make them most useful for the type of trade being encouraged. Jq, -16- i 1 tr.• r- _ -PARKING- FLOOR SPACE RELATIONSHIP PARKING TURNOVER- MASSACHUSETTS AVE. w u 2000 I00 rr:: w 11 I..o/ 90 :▪ :3:::::.:::::.:::.::.:.::.•::::•:::•::::•:::.•: .... ... ...:.::.....:4. :::::::::::::::'':.'::'.':. .. 0 1800 I(6 :;METER HOGS V pQ .cy ie so? • Via.-�-:�:•'. w y ,��� ,._.... rti.tom{�;'rw:« .....r v v..........• :C :C�ti i ....•. :ti :«<titi u 1600 Q. ' p� CO �atip PQ v ce a w 43 ai 70 CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE 41) 1400 G`,ir�'' ��PQ TURNOVER o 4-PROJECTED z 60 v) 1200 JP � FLt ,:r ro a it a 50 cr r I Ioov• �`'� oJP� o BASIC SHOPPERS 4o 1 0 O PRESENT SITUATION z Z �lca gif/ w G C1 c) x BOO—4�0` a 30 CR 4.gN a. a QpCo . Sg p 600.8 , 20 0 _ ° L. ,,s7.74 TY."'Y+ .^ems..<-�'?;?.?7,-.77,77,- L}_ .ti C9rav s .:-..,.m......• • ` t,.�.y�ti <xe x - { --ti 400 _ 10 .`?'D ‘1.1.54*. ry v .. o- .. �' '"r i y: w w fi•: la. ' ..k :"k ERRANDS' ° '. •3ii..'..s t, tin'.W.'.s.°,�' . = 44.*;.• -. rr.Itpy 'r�..-3:Xr ",,''. ''8+. `..: y'•2: Cr CO 200 10' 20' 30' 4d 5d I HR. 6 HRS. MINUTES Z I Z 0 L _ SOURCE: 204,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 E.D.A. FIELD SURVEYS, JUNE 11,1965, NOV.2,1965 8 NOV. 20, 1965 APPLICABLE DURING DAYTIME SHOPPING HOURS COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE F....rsy_4 Lint. - • . • _ _ - saisimov$Ners'insionsen°S02.111WIET°NIA 06 maw*Iva-gNsw.ose _ i I ErlIt $0,112fild3VVOVII 1161.flYS VIII$SLVDOCST Ilandirriga90 20110416131 93LUStnin VIARCZO031906.21 NI OVVOI Reig1011131 1400 oi,Evaimai g g Of; I/ ao NOIONIXHrl '0) ( ? 010.736t OL UW11 20,19 1 I 1 3tinianus 1Vd13111iiri 133961,d0Nd ; ; C27.1 I I 10'1 Trd aiNntl 43S0dOklal v __la LO-9961 03A0V4311 533Vd3 ONliS1 XIM If I NIV94314 01 S33YdS 9/41151X3M - Lr-1 oNixtiva ernignii _ SNOILL DV 0 triarict — a 111 i23\C:1! C:3 re1 ° la ,'1 C:3% E`-'3‘ _ 1 NOCOOD19.0 - . 006 --- - - _ 0.3 . c2=_i: 2c Joe-- col EcD, (i7 \c;3 - ----- ‘G_Li ; — • cij - - 1-9 13 I 1, I 1. ‘4-1,‘ / Awl,„ I 11 / - T • - 18 0 —7-- EMI 1111 s' a _ • • ; rmk. 0 , ; L ;1-%-kw% • I 11J 1:1 „.te k E:=J _mg aa,niar ; \=‘, . - - _ - _ - jr- c13\ ,zEj 1•‘ C3 - jCS-' t,ni 1 ° 0 a 9. " r C. r N i C. O _. +r� .1 ~ t it PliikillM ,1! , r 11 ItiA' ii,..w. 0 w 1 1 R G, i r oz- is oD laa. > Elill ) 3> 111 Cz mG7IOIr GI ;1 11 ' i 10 oC) X4SI rT1 14.1111 i ' o i 0 o �� o o 111 , 4 a illii - I� o m p, 4S � '11 I f71 � y iii ' nZ zI— gi C it m ry. -1 i_.. 1, lX Ili Ilii II ili' iS - v, 161Y N Y 8 ilk 1�; ` y' L e m • 0 iJ , Ia E eM I . l.,/,(1/..1 zi, ,.., L �, ft iti. ,,,,, )1/, ,„,,, 4, vl r,-.1-0-1.,:gk'4V..7;.4,1";',41'LL' N't.70,',..1..,\?-„,--- -;-,'''2:-...;*----- 0i ,..„,„4 ;-or X,,- . ., .,,,,,,,,-;1-. .,-11_1',I-4- di'71°°''' . . .. ,, (iY Ii 1 ,/, i l`K' 41"" ''''' ,":":4L(' �L�°7q� .b� a I f c w t'{�.451a�F lc "r b� 1 f t�`! yt-iI f l' ISI r t Y ' �� ; 4; jS q !! t �,- {1Ii{lt fI own G i isP i�fr _+{I' „ 3"�'i+ W art=� ri: �:}4E�;; r ( t 4 St 1 }s��Sri pl� i '' •� ^�fri4r,-; ���r 0 �g �,a 1� ''? , a 0 4.l � 1 S �� a�. ,;tea„JI�� _t � �- �, �� c ��1 .� D , t; �Nttl ” L .iq .1 r yr `� . y '✓;11.019 ---7-"...-... +=i w � `ice 4 {' •4 �r r, T Jo 111 "ern l a ! 1`'1 i' r Lt = � --'4 _ �,1A.Its 4 `"`44,-w�.,"" ,' „ . tJ0T uELIO �� c •r 4 a, , ,, ✓ - — ' re rF1 ►11i �� N � /yr-"l�ylnr1r � '` �,i '."� y� .Y i.:�y-...:.".,-;;;,.;4,-.,?..7:....145 ri'4"4:-F-_,J✓wa."„ '� esti i 3. :',4,1' r Iw1'sfj}ieFC w -. �'•;j :y VA' �f "1!/ `01 1 VF IP° li.r_.i,.. „y a, s -4. , ( 1 (( „ its 1 �}� "eft 11 f5 +, r �y l yil i r F Ahr*r ell r`A a , ' f , r, le .I °. ..: 7.,%:F •-, ��1, ��J.�`r '.- rll,rn�+4 ice, v . T 4 1 ,4.:, 1,4,_.,,,,W4 ":r •,,,, . ,,. :: . .' . ., . ..t.----- ------ -.,...,„ „. y a 1 II I, et::5� A L! :IP.UCTI,JPElU T� U T L ET T®�! 1. tiAI,G ACCILd6CTT c �rrre DEVELOPIAG1J/ 4 Wile — PL UUP �acss����Ecad t1 tlgoms7EIU m A� 117 �9 ,I, ..Ir,: 1.4 DESIGN GUIDANCE 1 ! ' Functional demands and economic realities have great bearing on what the Center looks like or can look like. There is little functional demand for upper-floor commercial space, so whether desirable or not, new structures along Massachusetts Avenue will generally be low. There •is strong demand for ground floor commercial space, so new structures will largely fill their land area. Major traffic diversion is at present infeasible, so Massachusetts Avenue functionally must be about 60 feet wide, give or take four feet. Within the constraints set by functional demands, however, there is a wide range of visual possibility. The "give or take four feet" on Massachusetts Avenue is, in fact, an issue of vital importance to the visual structure of the Center, as is just how the new low wide buildings are designed. To effectively guide design in the Center, agreement should be reached among the many who regulate and influence design decisions there as to what is being sought. Discussion in the past concerning this has dwelled at a highly specific level, the style of architecture appropriate, on which there is sharp divergence of local opinion: should or should not Lexington Center's archi- tecture be exclusively imitation colonial, or can a case be made for design li which reflects the 20th Century reality of the place, without being dis- harmonious? Agreement at that level is far off in time, but actually may be ,jll less important than agreement on the more basic issues illustrated on the Visual Design Plan. Where should there be buildings, where are there spaces we care enough about to acquire if necessary? Where can large structures ap- ( ipropriately rise, where should only small structures exist? Where should buildings be stuck together, where separate? Which structures have function or location making an aggressively assertive design appropriate, which should be "background" structures? Which are the buildings with historic values of critical importance for preservation? Other broad questions, not shown on the plan, might be raised. Should all buildings have visible roofs? Should neon and porcelain enamel be banned? If the Planning Board, Historic Districts Commission, Selectmen, the volunteer professional Design Advisory Group, and businessmen representatives could concur on the broad issues illustrated on this plan or some plan like it, implementation could be achieved without great expansion of present powers. Zoningcontrols some of these characteristics.cteristics. Fox any structure involving ' purchase of public land (the Hunt Block, Central Block, and new Waltham St. building are all examples), provision requiring compliance can be placed in the deed. Persuasion through the Design Advisory Group and others can be i.„i highly effective, as can the exemplar of public construction. Until concur- rence among the major groups involved is reached, extension of legal controls, either through Historic bistricts expansion or through creation of an addi- tional review agency, is likely to contribute little to the basic visual goals of the Center. One of the strongest lessons of the visual design efforts in the Center is that, just as rational circulation design in the Center requires a. town- wide circulation plan to relate to, so too visual design and beautification efforts in the Center should be related to similar efforts at the town-wide scale, based on a town-wide visual analysis to complement the current town- wide fiscal analysis. Such a study is proposed for 1967, as one element in a town-wide beautification effort. Lexington has an extraordinary concentration of resident design profes- sionals, for the first time in Town affairs formally involved in a public issue through this study. Future design guidance efforts should take full advantage of this rich resource of talent. • 111 'i1 -21- • 00'''' _ 1 c.. 0 _., ON, e----••,...-.__k L11 _ ,o, ..... * 0 0 'el.\\,;-00:\°06,0ek,e,....: 00 D 00\\Po 1:31r..131:3 c3000\kjpoo or 70 1 nuou oe‘o It No .4. , L• 9 • 00 0 0 * 0 011E1 CI tiDEIDD - e• • Li ra Ow *I." k . ...,,0000 oo0 o oo o, ,o ,,, , riza,' Jo •,,to,;)._0 ......„, .0. 1„...4)::/0..13. no 0 a 0 • - 0 0 . . - 0 0. 0, o---,,,,0 0 1.0 0 .. 0 O... 13 .0 * '''''-',,,,,,,,,,-,._ it (IN 0'0' M 0 11 a 0 0 i i ,e16 • 411- 4g1 E3 a Ci d.,-.1-1 Li ----„,,,,,_0 ,..„....„ . .0. • • a 0..: . . _ * ,4- . - - -- a a ------------ . - . ... 0 13 '0 0 CI 0000 --C,,s''. i. )4.\ ..,,.;:.,il'' r--- • " tACVU '`.00 C}' far '' -0. -• , ---. _ - \ . _ - .. . 0 11. 1 i , - • 0 .-00 0 . 141 g CI l'66••••,7 664. --.N., 4;1414:1:, r 41 e ' 1 ‘ $6 0 1 s if 1 1 0 11:10 0 i 1111 ir*,. 6t, . • ma- 13 0 7.1.., 4., - : ' _...!- •" 0!'0 0 -a * 0.0 _.....9 0, VISUAL DESIGN PLAN 111 -\. fif ,11 :„..0•0,. ',0 Li;.• . .0 . cb,0p.:1)0* 0\ 0 * 0 00 0 0 * i 1 /...„...,''.7::aovi:0;:op°031:-Erj;':-*--'f'.::12:3131siti:(39CIs:0:)V311 :11:\*:3:1 0-/-1 ''`- .° .'r. irs W.LWALIM enVinte.OPtt 6...14 rare,t1 tKa 1/1 rote,. I i i . % 1 t, 1' ,,,,,o 11 _°.1 r 1:1-1 - ' IWIL01.16 la:gnome OiSTRICTS .a fe -- _ , 7 l'.., \ Is ciliChiti1a[omega CONIV/411,..1 / .F \11. ,.. ....tieloosno STFIVG-TOC —/is'.. ,),Z,N\ ali) I/ DIT.C.17 iTiniciell \ ii N if i a Ea N i i Rdteeeng mem rteem mom= E M s s (17 6\ * ,/ E 0 i /- .. STREETS 1.111461 SIMICATIONS NV'TieWe±--11.-a–Tra: I 1 11 \\\ I i /if \\111 I 1' 1%. ' * LEXINGTON CENTER I/ .4 MORS MO reR Tift I.EIMSTON KRA.=SUM IAD mg tpatiorcapaggno si h : - r"""...r.17.1,11.7.,=7 a W4UArfl 0 // 4 i f , • ''''''66***i*: ''''''' r.m.,: r*-_ --• ---....--,-- ---——— ----.--. — --——- ———— — —— ——.--.—=--——— —--- — - —— — .= — —=. • . . . . —_..— -- --._ . - ..— . . _ . — — r m ,co! ,� - 1��� �4 r 1{x}17 _ _ _ --�-- likt dB \ , i, i , li _ � 1B 1 . _______L___ _..„, ,„.. , .._iii6 .vonit,r-E3...... a1 1 0\ itt e t 3A V I .�. 3 � - 1 NAil1CMIHCT►� - - ` ---- 44t Ili e , , . 4 0.._ A 'ENV 1 `i e ms ' ' F -- i ~ tirf '� Il m� (=z3 D in i 6c3-1 0 0_I"01 C3\ 8 I(73 I EP 6 Ci \ El---j Q t ,,_© =i [ ' Pry, —. _.— ..- cti • D rF ,, 12 .� �� s �• � PUBLIC NS c �� ,04 FT � - � � _�� � .�a 4 AC T I O _ , ? SCHEDULE • '�7 y , _ ---.-./. U11NBEAUTIFICATION - �s ..11 ®' 4:31- Com .” 1-1966-67 PARKING ,o u 2-resp sa ACCESS - yLATER i f t•r 0 t} 1 1; 3 ZONING CHANGE a ,l�Erl ,, _� LEXINGTON CENTER Of ( t'ttrt �uxcal - sluora raolwllro FUN rxwtwxctox IMO roawo oxo Tx corlatoxmin {f -.n �" ! rexxlflrt K[COlox10 I UTIS,ONG 00110x, ---O-situs '`�. f J I1 I el 3 ----7--(3k \ OCOYOxln.IrU9MM-0f[fN.011GxtTEC7{.PlFixfI01D.xsssAewusnn " fly r ` �' * \ /1' .. —& a.. AA. 7 i /. I . A 1 , aomvairio Noisaa axv Noisaa 4 r ' r' a4 1111 II DESIGN OBJECTIVES ti Four groups are involved in changes to Lexington Center, each group with its own objectives to be fulfilled. The busi- ' I nessmen concerned presumably have profit as a primary objective. ,iI Customers and other users of the Center are interested in better service, with "service" very broadly construed. Residents of s ' Lexington, whether users of the Center or not, are interested in the role of the Center as a symbol of the community. Finally, the various designers involved in either individual structures or the overall scheme for the Center have, in addition to satis- faction of the above objectives, artistic goals to be satisfied. ;! Profit, service, symbol, and art are therefore proposed as the basic objectives to be fulfilled by the design of the Center. ' Fortunately, these objectives are largely self-reinforcing. The profitability of operations in the Center will be strength- ened by improved services, will be further strengthened by greater symbolic congruence between the Center and the community ... ::.. it represents, and fulfillment of the designer's objectives should both result from and contribute to congruent symbolism, improved service, and higher profitability. THE CENTER AS A SYMBOL A major element in the identity of any community is its non-residential focus; in the case of Lexington, this is the collection of historic, public, and commercial structures and spaces along Massachusetts Avenue roughly from Harrington Street to Woburn Street. In Lexington, symbolic identity is of par- ticular significance because of the historical heritage involved, In the eyes of an estimated 1,000,000 annual visitors to the future Minute Man National Park, the Center and its immediate environs will represent the entire community. To the many thousands of more local passers-through, whether commuters or F casual visitors, the Center similarly contributes heavily to the image of the community, , The typical resident of Lexington has reason to be proud of his town for many reasons, among them: -24- -III allmn liJr 1) That it '.s the locus of a great moment in world history. 2) That it is widely respected for the present quality of its schools and other m •icipal services. 3) That it is a co . flunity with an extraordinary richness of professionally and technically talented residents (not just boosterism, but verifiable by cold Census data), and the locus of a n .,ber of great space-age technological centers. 4) That reside. -there suggests (but doesn't prove) at- tatisent of an economic level well above regional averages. The Center, if vis •11y successful, should symbolize all of these qualities in which the connunity takes pride, and add "' to them another reason for co p' , ity pride, 1 11 5) that it is a col.{,unity with a singul., ly successful central area. The first objective of design efforts in the Center, then, should be to enable that Center to symbolize all that is true � of Lexington; that it is an historically hallowed spot, but also a very special and very active twentieth century one. V SERVICES OF THE CR cR Residents look to the Center for a variety of services, from the Library at one end, through co ,flercial services in the H ' middle, to to , . a4Iiinistrative offices at the other end. In r what way can the design of the Center contribute to those services? If "amenity" can be considered a "service", certainly visual improvements will contribute to services rendered. A more meas able visual service would be to render the entire Center, each of its component parts, and their spatial relation- ships as clearly ,�derstandable as possible, so that all of the services offered =, e more easily known, as are the means of , moving from one to another. This problem of sorting out com- plexity obviously gets ',re critical with larger central areas, and since one objective of these studies is to find ways of letting the Center grow, •derstandabi].ity will be increasingly important in Lexington if the plan proposals are carried out. ctionally, the Center has traffic-handling and activity- 0 supporting service roles. Both through traffic and internal movenents, including parking and parking-store access, should be . .de as -irrooth as possible. ,ti -25- 111,11 ','iii The Center's primary service role is that of an activity center. That role will be best served if the Center can be so designed as to support a range of activities which supplement, i, rather than duplicate, services available elsewhere, thereby broadening the range of shopping choice at convenient proximity, )I DESIGN AND PROFIT ` ' 111 If the Center is made more attractive to residents of ;', Lexington and the region around it, profits will almost cer- tainly be improved. If at the same time the Center can be made i�N more attractive to the many tourists drawn to the Green, so much the better. �E in The job of being increasingly attractive to tourists is the easier to discuss. Travellers are unlikely to delay their journey to visit a center just like the one back home, unless they have compelling service needs. On the other hand, a 11. center with a distinctive character stands a far better chance N° An of drawing them, and even more of a chance if that character is in some way related to the object of the trip, in the case of Lexington, a visit to an historical center. To draw tour- ists, then, the Center should be visually distinctive, with that distinctive character reflective of the town's history. f There should be elements of visual continuity and linkage be- "` tween the area of the Green and the rest of the Center. Fi- 's � nally, to be commercially attractive to tourists, the Center i' should be visually attractive, both in its individual buildings and in their relationships to each other. 15, For residents of the region near Lexington but within „I`" neither the town itself nor the "natural" trading area of the ��° Center, much the same considerations apply as for tourists. If IH a day trip to Lexington can be made a pleasurable outing to a singularly interesting and even exciting place, the trade area of the Center can conceivably be expanded, A particularly critical consideration for this potential market is the in-- °i ' delibility with which the memory of a visit to Lexington is impressed, a memory often held in visual terms. If favorably and strongly recalled,, such trips are likely to be repeated. II H IIl Making a visit to the Center an exhilarating visual ex- perience cannot help but make such a visit a more enjoyable and often-repeated one, even for the "bread and butter" cus- tomers of Lexington's present market area, to the profit of all ;; concerned,. The means of accomplishing this for residents are largely those discussed earlier, and also those under alternate topics of symbol, service, and art. -26- I I II 0 T:1,.; CENTER AS A WORK OF ART The aspirations of this study and design effort are high, higher than just profit and service and symbolism. Higher, too., than additionally tidying up the Center by replacing old ). 1.„ TO facades with new ones and sprucing up the signs, though cer- tainly including that. Higher, too, than inspir' .g those n- , i facades each to be brilliantly designed, though hopefully in- cluding that as well. The aim of this effort is to guide de- velopment in such a way that the Center as a whole has - �tistis � 1, �0 merit even beyond the s . of the merits of its individual ew . buildings, as a result of the relationships among its build11 - ings, movement channels, and furnishings. 1 The artistic aims of design at this scale are little dif- u ferent from those of design at any scale, and are little dif- ferent from those cited earlier, such as to . =ke clear the 1� f action of the Center, of each of its constituent parts, id of their relationships; to provide a symbolic representation .U, of the sique nature of the coG. 'unity; in short to imbue the p Center and its components with me• ;.ing. e' i H .n . �.SIC OBJECTIVES 1 oThe basic objectives have now been stated in abstract 1 terms. Those objectives are: I, a) To achieve a visually distinctive ci - acter for Lexing- 1' ton Center. b) To make that distinctive character a congruent symbol for the co. unity not only as it has been but also as it is. c) To a.: e the structure and contents of the Center as " clear and understandable as possible. d) To establish visual connections between the Green and the co.. .,ercial area. rt . e) To make the recollection of the image of the Center as easy as possible. f) To make the Center as attractive as possible. g) To satisfy f .ctional demands of circulation and parking H well. „ h) To stimulate development of a unique range of activities in the Center. r -27- P 1 DESIGN LIMITATIONS 11 Design at the scale of the entire Center is far different from designing a single building. First, there is not one client to be dealt with but rather many individual owners, not neces- i' sarily acting in concert. Second, change is likely to occur not 1111, all at once, but rather over a long period of time. Third, avail- 11. able control is far weaker at the townscape scale than at the n n architectural scale. The architect can precisely specify his j intent and be assured of compliance down to the finest detail, "j Neither existing nor any possible future laws are likely to per- 1,' mit this at the broader scale. ,� li Because of these differences in client, timing, and control, the kind of plan appropriate for the Center is far different IN`i from an architectural blueprint. While an architect, through his plans, specifies an exact and unique solution, the town de-- A ' signer's plans should permit any number of solutions, as long as they fit the general concept he is advancing. That concept should be so presented that any solution possible within it is 1 likely to promote the objectives stated earlier, or is at least i$ ' unlikely to conflict with them. li Each new building event in the Center alters the web of relationships which should be considered in making individual building designs, so the problem is a dynamic one. Even if agreement could be reached on the "correct" solution for the i':' specific and detailed design of all elements in the Center today, the very next new building or major alteration would require re- lated revisions to the "correct" solution for the rest of the area, making a rigidly specific plan of the Center a practical impossibility. This design effort, then, will not result in a blueprint purporting to tell each building owner exactly what he should do with his property, but rather will set general limits, suggest themes, and perhaps offer a palette of elements to be drawn on in specific design. It is important at this stage to define I what elements are going to be dealt with in the design. There is long experience in the definition of the elements ;ti of functional design, and of the public means of guiding them. Roads, sidewalks, utilities, activity patterns, and zoning con- trols are all familiar. A design aimed at public guidance of , , the visual environment, one component of the present plans for the Center, is a relatively obscure art. What should or should not be stated in the design must, therefore, be carefully clari- fied. III y -28- I` li First, all of the public furnishings in the area are appro- priately considered very specifically as part of the design, since these are under public control. Traffic signs, street U . lighting, plantings, fences, hydr. ts, trash bins, call boxes, and other appurtenances should be made to contribute to the de- sign concept of the Center, and not be randomly organized as at ` - " present. Second, the system of mov-aents - roads, alleys, sidewalks and paths - can be specifically designed, since these too are 1� in general publicly controlled. The esthetic experience of the Center has important movement aspects; the sequential relation- ° ` ships among elements at this scale is frequently fo d to be .' more important than their static composition. Not only is the way in which people move through the Center important, but sob ' also are the pavement surfaces over which they move, and these, too, are subject to control and, in the present case, almost certain to presently face reconstruction even if not change. 1 I Third, the spa .s, mass, and void relationships in the iy Center are appropriate elements for design consideration. Sere there is a measure of public control through zoning, which pres- ently limits construction to certain height and set-back re- u , strictions.. In the Center, economics very nearly forces con- . 1 struction right up to those limits, so that they become in fact the bounding dimensions of new construction. Those limits, and V' the possible suggestion of "not less than" limits are clearly `'' critical to the visual character of the Center, and are clearly appropriate for public design efforts,. ' II Fourth, the pattern of type and intensity of activity is, in addition to being a critical f .ctional consideration, also an esthetic one, and should be considered as such. The esthetic p,; quality of an urb, .; area is made up not only of inert physical objects, but also of h Stan activity. Again, zoning is a tool co. . only used to influence this, albeit in a crude way. A finer-scale design than is coon in zoning studies is indicated in this case. These four considerations - public furnishings, may- lent systems, ,f-ss and void relationships, and the activity pattern - I are normally subjects for examination in pla► .ing studies, so their inclusion as design elements represents nothing new in ' private/public relationships. Their sensitive design could greatly assist in achievement of the previously stated visual objectives, all without specific reference to any other character- istics of the individual buildings involved. It could be held that this is as far as publicly-sponsored design efforts should go, leaving the design of building surfaces and other consider- ations other than the above completely in the hands of individual 0. building owners and their architects. Yet it is perfectly clear .�n -29- 1 b'` 0 p ii» that most of what is accomplished through these four design elements could be destroyed through what is done on building u facades. H ic It should be possible to provide guidelines for the design .` of building exteriors in such a way that there is assurance that each building will contribute to the overall design schemed 1 without tying the hands of the designers of individual struc- tures and damping their creativity, as would be the case in any j attempted "blueprint design" of all facades in the entire Center. For example, physical elements intended to provide con- d ,oa tinuity to facades might be noted, if such prove desirable. Sign heights, base heights for show windows, or themes such as � tl arcaded fronts or a canopy, or a selection of colors or ma- terials could be stated. Continuity will not necessarily be desirable everywhere; in some locations staccato discontinuity may be more desirable, and should be indicated in the design. 11 Most buildings in Lexington Center are quite restrained in their form, color, and other elements which can be used to make a building assert itself. One handsome exception he remodelled railroad _Statniar perliapsthe most s r n - ` assertive structure in the gqnter, When all buildin s try to dI ' attention to themselves we have the sort of cacophony found along many highways, such as Route 2 in Cambridge. When n' no buildings speak loudly, the results may be, as perhaps in iti Lexington, so bland as to be inappropriate to a vibrant ac- t tivity center. The degree of self-assertion which structures at various sites would ideally exhibit should be incorporated into the visual design scheme, as an important means of ac- complishing the basic design objectives. ) Similarly, at some locations, buildings would contribute to the visual scene most by asymmetrical composition, in others by establishing an axis through strongly stated symmetry. In 1 ' some cases, buildings should be neutral "bridges", in other cases should provide visual termination. These elements, too, should be stated parts of the design. Color is highly important; if possible, it should be in- corporated into the design in some way, although this is highly complex to do in an abstract scheme, and may have to be general- ized. Similarly, textural considerations such as whether walls are to be smooth, irregularly coarse, or regularly articulated should be studied, as should the degree of glazed openness of fir ; facade as against opaque closure. ry, Finally, "scale" will prove highly critical and again, if it proves possible to do so, its locational variations should be incorporated into the design. "Scale" in the sense of big I:^ 0^r -30- structures versus small will be affected by the mass/void re- lationships discussed earlier among elements traditionally con- . 1 trolled, but there is another aspect to scale. The Sheraton ; Plaza Hotel on one side of Copley Square has a far different scale from the group of stores on the opposite side, although 'j in aggregate each bulks equally large. This "apparent scale" is affected by the relative size of doors, windows, and other elements useful in visually estimating size and distance. til Co"""1ercial structures in highway-oriented shopping centers Y typically find a large apparent scale useful for rapid co"" u- "► nication. Pedestri- g arcades, just as centers of pre-automotive days, can effectively use a far more intimate scale, Where !h' each is appropriate in Lexington should be "=de clear in the d design. 11 ST =' Ido mention so far has been made of "style" as a component �j in the design of the Center, yet this is one design element which is already being publicly controlled, through the His- 0 toric Districts Co"."'ission's authority over a large portion of s, the Center. There is, however, considerable doubt as to whether . any stylistic control can succeed for all of this area, and virtual certainty that imposition of colonial, quasi-colonial, or pseudo-colonial trappings on all structures in the Center would do more harm than good. The issue was well illustrated by the protracted contro- a versy in 1958 over a church addition facing the Green. The many alternative facade treatments submitted by the church's architects demonstrated that the real problem lay not in whether J the doors, windows and cornices had colonial, Georgian, Roman- esque, or other styling. The real issues concerned space/mass/ void relationships, building assertiveness, and scale. A Superior Court ruling that, in effect, the Historic Districts '( Co. "fission is limited to consideration of the style of doors,, windows, and cornices, rendered th impotent to control the most critical elements involved in "appropriateness". E The issue of "appropriateness" is not as s' ifple as en- p forced imitation. In fact, a strong case can be made that the II most appropriate companion structures for Lexington's excellent It survivors of the Revolutionary War would be ones which resemble them in being esthetic as well as physical products of their o, ., era not soul-less hypocriticalIf the sym- imitations, bolic value of Lexington Center is, really...impo.rtant, ns 0 ,ln- ed peae, ndling . it is important that it s 4""boliz. - ,,, • place. ,,, ..,,a � r �� �;- - o mass scale, tures, and pro ortio s ,n „a .ria ri-t.e_. t s as a ,� Centau 3r f .Z,.k'......10 1;ex n gtos 18th Century peri ..g+ can -31- evolve. Even colonial Williamsburg, the archtype of stylistic �X reconstruction, wisely uses a complementary contemporary idiom for structures housing contemporary functions of administra- w , halls and operations. ao Stylistic control is not critical to attainment of the d , stated design objectives, but integrity int2gEity_sILdslIgmLls. If it were as simple to require a high level of design integrity as it is to require colonial trim, one aspect of the visual design in the Center would be solved. Just as design integrity cannot be specified or required, neither can design quality be specified, required, or guaranteed. The succ- - . • • went in the Center de•end- • .d 1 no small de ree u on • - • iF: resign of ! individu uctvres. The quality of design will depend upon the skill and effort of the designers of the structures involved. The skill ob- tained (✓ depends;,,. ,.on recion of designers bclientt•� efforobtained depends upon making everycommissionin the Center an ,, no �tamf-attsti c � 11g 4 d ., feast n ,.rt through interest b both the cl cnt �we,, communit i ins -StiUgim' o r{ t1ie...highest_1etc-» mea t', It is a truism that beauty cannot be legislated. It is equally obvious that the broader achievement of good design , cannot be abstracted, specified, and required. What can per- haps be achieved through this design effort is a situation in which good design is more likely to be achieved than otherwise, and in which irrespective of the quality of design of individual , structures, the relationships among structures will be such as 9' to ,dd to rath- ?; .;om the •,ualit of the total en- vironment. n-v onmen • -32- , 4 of11 �. N a" la 3. p., U J Q M < H jGO ?li J CO4 ,. s m �I U CZ VI ywE: I (i:. w =a ) .7, r s .. Q d lac a- ,�°t o I'6, r Z SI II VI m r ' u at yy ...1C _ auu z _ta 1 W r. O 0 0 I a Na; u „- -- W tu W O. yI 6-. ' I I = V -.. C = Y W w 1i J y N K OS p IYG O) .. = I N la Q Z � 3. ik iso a N y p0lYI 00 W G, 0 La I CC I 11 _-. l - - ..�.. 1h P. Offil N4 11 I ,.. . 11 t yh' XI W 4 rd. p 431 In H en 2 aceslaffign on 41 f 1 0ii W p N N 4- 011 N41 ca al H Z 11 Il p ci- ty �p { N It 11 S F+ 0. d mm [p - et N u V pGC ity p P u o Z y g 3 q I . 7 J tr 7 GO Cr* J J O ` 0 0 at e0 mc 0 g = d LI 0ta. GOlid I III 4E wL Gnm CI 11.4 gi I RAJ r ° 1 lYw� r4, m. II EXISTING VISUAL CONDITIONS a II Any reasonable _lan short one for com re t ,e- tion ia�, an what x],sts,, protecting or enhanci to e_ just ashtruenofEv .sual-co tions asitiseofatra traffic coor n- ditions, is ,�us �" oa,. or building space provisions. Accordingly, an analysis of existing visual conditions in Lexington Center has been con- ducted to determine how well the earlier derived visual design objectives are being met. To provide comparative examples, three other locally well-known examples of commercial centers of somewhat similar size were also studied: Concord, Nantucket, and Greenfield, Massachusetts. TIE ELEMENTS THEMSELVES ,1s Two things determine the character of the visual environ- ment: the character of the elements composing it, and the way )�,, , those elements are related to each other. At the scale of Lexington Center, both are critical. The elements comprising the Center are its topography, structures, vegetation, roadways, and activity. This section J examines in what way these elements individually contribute towards accomplishment of design objectives. A later section examines their interrelations. Topography • There is little topographic variation in Lexington Center, and to the degree that such variation affects the visual en- vironment, it is to place a few discernible limits to the Center, particularly to the north, where the beginnings of Meriam Hill demark the end of the Center. The gradients on Massachusetts Avenue, Waltham Street, Muzzey Street, and Clarke Street are so slight as to not be important perceptual elements. In contrast, one end of Concord Center is elevated and backed by a hill, with the rest of the Center essentially flat, fin° giving some sense of orientation to the Center. Greenfield's u -83- �h; c------1 _,• _ _ 7--‘ , -'-'- -...,---''' _ - X , --- . „_...4 --------JA.... _ a t ‘') __ -=- ,- ,- ' ....i ,E3‘ - - "fr '1.1 a a ; , . ' 1 i ti STREET ...........— . t, - ,--_ -- A -- - : .,.a. -- - I ' '----- if ' I F, I if, ii ti ii NANTUCKET LEXINGTON CONCORD GREENFIELD - L---3- 9, :// /:um, . ‘..., _ \I-\‘‘,,,,,,,_-_—,-'''''''''''.-':''''''' 1' 11 Illir''r''''''\''- -,•:."- i--- -''Lil ''''''' (-----;13'1.11,71fIer:-'1'\\"\\\111:t IL --_-_-,--A- _....„ : .,--._.--.._ . ver --. 1 % - si ‘ . i II ,= .,...-, . . ,0. a ..., ... v -. _ _a „ -.,,„. ii'-' . i / ri - .., ...= - _A, - . , --. ' • - -, ‘ ,.. ...... .\\k -\ \ •,, iiiNis......_,„,.,,,, _ \ \ IIINIENNIIIIIIIIIrk.- ! PREIS.1 MISMES1 SiffiCA,:) COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS - BUSINESS CENTERS -- -- -- - p; r III "Massachusetts Avenue" (called Main Street) has a business and cultural center fairly well defined on three sides by topographic change, with the heart of the center itself oc- cupying a level area. Nantucket's business district is built on the side of a gentle hill, where flatness defines the ends of the district. The slope of Main Street is a natural orientational boon to visitors, since it gives the street a clear sense of direction. Nantucket's topography is an important asset, Concord's a minor one. Greenfield's topography is a problem, since it defines a topographic district too small for the current func- j tional district, resulting in lack of congruence between the topographically perceived and functionally used "center". In Lexington, topography is "neutral", neither severely limiting nor strongly suggesting solutions. Structures The commercial center of Lexington is lacking in struc- tures of unusual interest, either historically or architectur- ally. One small wooden structure on Waltham Street reputedly is the sole building in the commercial district having "long history". Perhaps destruction of history has been the price paid for commercial success, but in any event, the visitor look- ing for historic continuity through the commercial center of Lexington is likely to be disappointed. The area surrounding the Center, of course, is quite another thing, A large number of structures of both historical and architectural interest are visible from the commercial cen- ter, while not in it. The strength and significance of those structures is a clear asset to the visual character of the Center. Lack of historical structures in the business district is not true of any of the three centers chosen for comparison. !' Greenfield, the least "historic" of the four, has one eighteenth and several early nineteenth century structures surviving in its commercial center, along with representatives•of virtually every period between then and now. Greenfield's era of great- est prominence and growth was the turn of the century, and its center reflects this in genuine architectural remains, as well as in the usual reproductions. Nantucket, of course, is primarily characterized by struc- tures inherited from its era of greatness in the early and mid K. nineteenth century. In Nantucket, the challenge is less to a find historic structures than to find the new ones. Ip -34- r yw, Concord's Milld, o area ex-++plifies historical continuity.. Virtually every architectural period from Colonial to Modern 01 is represented with genuine ex °+,ples. There are relatively 1 buildingsfew +�� lookVic or an'; twenc Center. ed 'x1c.iIIgs w„^in Most Cetr � � �h century buildings Victorian or an era look twentieth century; and ith few exceptions, colonial- appearing buildings really are colonial. i Historical presence and interest is easily discussed and I ' verified by construction dates; • chitectural quality and ' ' interest is far more subjective and difficult. Yet few are likely to disagree with these broad findings. 1 For reasons difficult to fathom, the Lexington Center t ” i business district has not been favored with a large n ober of ;individual � structures building f unusml merit. The ion,eof,ivery �� 1 ��� y g _ , almost y�itonetmer it a specate, or a, dxessln?quality, rndpcetheibestnstruct res in theCen- ter are the s e-s reet wooIP 1d s od frame buildings, once residences, now becoming commercial and professional offices. Many of these rr are individually well proportioned, and collectively they es- tablish a consistent "clapboard esthetic". The Cary Memorial Library, in its .-ssing, scale, and siting, is an excellent transitional structure between the historic and co+ ++ercial • districts. A very few other structures rise above the ordinary. 1 It is perhaps equally true that neither Concord nor Green- field has been favored with an unusual n ober of well-designed i' I structures, though both of those centers have several older coo'ercial structures of considerable design merit. Nantucket, !' on the other hand, has a large n ober of felicitously designed 1 buildings in its Center worthy of individual attention. Lexington has no barbarously bad structures, despite howls lI' ° of anguish over new buildings in the letters column of the Lexington Minute n over the years. There has been a restraint exhibited in new buildings which has prevented obtrusive eye- sores. The most frequently objected-to buildings are objected to less because their design is ,usually bad than because they are old, or because the function they ho -e and express is now I' is .,ppropriate for their location. Concord and Nantucket also avoid eyesores; Greenfield is less fortunate. Several highly prominent and ineptly designed I,. 1 structures ++ : ce sharp intrusions onto Main Street, well il- lustrating the damage that one or two strong but bad struc- 1 , tures can make. ill II' -35- el 4 li qiK II M 4nor Str, , tar'e _m o thn' °° stens, °,,,,light poles, 'i" Jac nd..„other,,,,°.,small object 0 condit on the.,,,,,,,.character i” h drant.�.�,.�-a r � °L..an,-ar-eaOf the four cases examined, only Nantucket avoids °' the ghoulish uniform blue light quality of mercury-vapor street tlM lighting widely spaced on high standards. This efficient but unattractive Iighting* does nothing to enhance the night scene in Lexington, Concord, or Greenfield except in helping to de-• fine where the center is by variation in lighting type and intensity. 4y Only Nantucket and Greenfield provide HextraTT, Street.. fur- nishings such as benches to sit on. The,•P _p s no .consistent N esthigtic_te .pully placed-and °.maintained s c ns in an of these communities', ,Concord perhaps akes toe bead e fort. Vegetation • The portions of Massachusetts Avenue and Waltham Street Where building frontage is more or less continuous is either trees, been planted scale° yrecently with street trees i lr has densityorr ,,,,, to have a relatively e ne rea ci. Outside of that area, tie street'"" . �� ing , to the Center are generally characterized by large scale street trees. • The Center also generally lacks smaller-scale vegetation, such that the few examples of lawn or shrubbery have heightened impact, as does Emery Park (Depot Square). The densely developed portion of Concord Center is devoid of trees, but is small enough that peripheral trees and other landscaping always present a visible contrast. Nantucket en- joys large scale trees not only surrounding it but also right through the commercial center. The, strongest element on Main Str"eet 41fi .greenfield Is°°probably the soaring elartrees- arching forty feet or more over the street. Roadways It is difficult to abstract characteristics of roadways 1 from their surroundings, since the qualities are so inter- related, but at this point it is worthwhile noting the differ- ences among the major roads in these four centers. 1 ° . ' Concord's Main Street measures about eighty feet, includ- ,t ing sidewalks, between buildings, while Nantucket's Main Street places buildings about eighty to ninety feet apart. Green- i field's Main Street, on the other hand, separates buildings by a, about 100 feet, just as Massachusetts Avenue does now in 11 Lexington east of Waltham Street, and shortly will do west of Waltham Street. • -36- o,il r 1 Nantucket's Main Street is sharply limited in visual length by buildings te minating the vistas at each end. Concord's two shopping streets 'are both "Tt' shaped , closed at 1 one end, open at the other on Walden Street, te .i• -ted by a building in a "V" intersection at the other on Main Street.. Greenfield's Main Street is te minated at some distance on one end only but gains some sense of enclosure through its curva- ture, While Massachusetts Avenue curves, it does so outside of the primary co + n ercial area, and the "backdrop" for the cur- vature is now a number of small detached structures. At the Green, the termination is handsome but not large, so that the Avenue tends to go on and on at both ends. � Nantucket's cobblestone and brick road and sid 1k sur- �' r'" _facing-- s f: .o and ��• ��.queJ.y,...suitan,::.i d1�1 ..a,.sd, ....4 �, ,�. . None e '- o`f the o ger centers have road surfaces any more imaginative than asphalt roads and concrete sidewalks. Activity Nantucket caters•to a relatively fashio+ :ble s . .er trade; activities there tend, therefore, to lend themselves rs to at-,,g ! � interesting display. Nantucket's movement system frac still ve and Toavily non-automotive, encouraging design and dis- play suitable for impact at a pedestrian rate of movement. 4.'edian family income in Concord is about $500 lower than in Lexington, but despite this, the type of store activity in Concord is, in many instances, aimed at a higher quality mar- ket than Lexington stores apparently aim for, Greenfield's market profile is significantly lower income than any of the other three. Concord and Lexington have quite sharply segregated ac- tivity patterns, with shopping here, gover• uent and churches there. Greenfield has somewhat more central area intermixture of activity, Nantucket and Greenfield complement shopping ac- tivity with eating and drinking spots; especially in the case of Nantucket, this extends the period of central area activity well into the night. STRUCT '`-L INTE 'LATIONSHIPS The way in which elements of topography, structures, veg- etation, roadways and activity relate to one another is at least as important to visual success as is the character of each of those elements taken separately. Both existing and potential issues are covered in the paragraphs which follow.; pp •�4l . -37- Massachusetts Avenue Perhaps the greatest structural deficiency of the Center ,,- is the lack of clear relationships among the major components of the Center along Massachusetts Avenue. The historical area „. surrounding the Green abruptly meets the commercial area, with minimal reflection in the commercial area of the connection. The Cary Memorial Library helps bridge the two by its siting, scale, massing, and use; the north side of the Avenue should do as well. At the other end of the commercial area, there is an un- satisfactory transition as the Center "peters out" with an i! auto service station and a utility building blurring what should be a clear transition from the commercial area to the civic area. Relationships of building scale, color/siting, and assertiveness do nothing to help the transition, and there is no common thread to link the areas, let alone to link all the spay from the Green to the town offices, as should be done. Conditions on the eastern end of Massachusetts Avenue could easily deteriorate. Three of the five houses between the Colonial Garage and the First Baptist Church are in the commercial zone, so could be replaced by stores built to the street and lot lines. What the best relationship along the Avenue at that point should be is difficult to judge, but the best solution certainly isn't to leave two houses between storefront extension of the Center and the .Church. Nantucket's Main Street is handsomely terminated at both ends by street alignment shifts and by prominent structures. Concord's central area roads are terminated in three directions by structures, on the fourth by a sharp road bend and use change occurring together. Greenfield's "leaks" at both ends, much to its detriment. Lexington's Massachusetts Avenue goes to infinity on the east, and is terminated on the west by Captain Parker, The Green, and the Unitarian Church, all handsome, significant, and right on the axis, but not really strong elements viewed from as far away as, say, Waltham Street. Were, for instance, the Church and the statue to swap sites, the visual termination and provision of a visual goal for Massachusetts Avenue would be far stronger. Massachusetts Avenue largely lacks the sense of orienta4 tion given to Nantucket's Main Street by its topography, and to both ,of Concord's shopping streets by their "T" inter- sections and terminal buildings. The width variation coupled with general height variation (as the street gets.narrower the buildings generally get taller) gives some left v. right orientation"at Waltham Street, but this is about to be at least -38- :" reduced by the road widening and by the possibility of rela- tively low structures replacing tall ones toward the west. °' The height of buildings on Massachusetts Avenue is gener- ally inadequate to give a sense of street enclosure. Green- field's Main Street, equally wide, and Nantucket's Main Street, nearly as wide, are given a desirable sense of enclosure both by tall buildings and by tall trees. Bland architecture, as is general in Lexington, is in- sufficient �� II to ensure building compatibility. Concord's some- what stronger individual buildings often sharply contrast with their neighbors in scale, color, materials, or style; this pro- duces a bright staccatto interest. Nantucket's chitecture is drawn from a narrow palette of materials, scale, and styles, resulting in a general anonymous harmony broken only by build- ings of locational and functional significance warranting such breaks. On Massachusetts Avenue nearly every building is either red brick or whitish stone or concrete, but somehow the mix- ture, in relatively long unbroken stretches of each material, produces neither bright contrast nor quiet harmony, nor do the variations reflect functionally significant events. For in- 4, stance, by adroit use of an alley corner location and con- trast of color and scale, a small frontage liquor store has become one of the most prominent objects in the Center. The bank in Depot Square occupies a building whose site and design imply a major focal activity. Another bank, by use of lawns and ■derstatement, similarly attains visual prominence. None of these establishments can be criticized for these efforts, tasteful in each case. One can only wish t at visual promi- nence related somehow to functional prominence (and one can also wonder if this visual problem isn't an accurate reflect-- ion of the lack of "focal activity" in the Center, a functional problem coir Myon to this type of complex) . Other Streets From Worthen Road to A'.;ssachusetts Avenue, Walthli Street has a chaotic mixture of elements. There is a great uncer- tainty ncer tainty as to where the Center ends. The telephone exchange, exposing a massive brick sidewall to the axial view approaching the Center, announces the begii, *.ing visually, but functionally isn't a part of the Center. On the east side of the street, the Lexington Arts and Crafts building is the first non- residential so•:"°y building encountered, but is six hundred feet before the shopping begins; its neighboring professional office building conflicts with the residential scale and char- acter (as well as zoning) of the area. IN i. r, I -39- • ;I In contrast, Muzzey Street manages the same transition, from intensive commercial to residential, from relatively bold to intimate scale, with a minimum of discord, by a gradual pro- �! gression of intensity and scale, helped by superior street trees and by the unifying effect o re a ve y un form front and side yards. This progression of intensity gives to Muzzey Street a clear sense of direction it would otherwise lack, aiding orientation, Whereas• 1altham•Street can probably be improved only by new building, Muzzey, Raymond and Forest Streets may be upset U'u by changes. Unless the present gradient persists, and unless scale relationships are handled as skillfully as at the Old Belfry Club, chaos similar to that on Waltham Street could develop in that area. On the other hand, the area has some mixture of use and scale now, so intensified use without die- rutpion is clearly feasible. Clarke Street, with three large scale structures now, and with a major public open space, probably is immune to such disruption. !Ii Vinebrook Road, Sherman Street, and Forest Street west of Clarke Street all serve areas of clear visual homogeneity and strength, through their single use, single scale, single type of construction, and the unifying effects of landscaped front yards and street trees. Introduction of change into any of those areas would cause visual disruption, a "cost" to be seriously weighed against any benefits to possibly be gained. It is rare that the relationship between parking areas and the stores they serve is well handled. Lexington is no ex- ception. Neatness and rear of building access is required for improvement, but this isn't sufficient, as illustrated by the large private lot back of the block housing Batemens and others. Beres the enclosing wall surfaces are neat and orderly, and rear entrances have been opened, Yet the area is "dead", un- attractive, and seemingly a world apart from Massachusetts Avenue. Strong activity bridges and other means of visual connection and orientation are required. Poor parking lot - shopping street relationship is the one thing which Lexington, Concord, and Greenfield share, although Greenfield and Concord each have one parking area which avoids this problem by "fronting" onto the Main Street at the periphery of the shop- ping area, facing across the street to a major structure, thereby being made a part of the street. -40- �D¢ w ; 0 N RELATIONSHIP TO GOALS W I Earlier, visual design goals for Lexington were derived. Based on this analysis, how well does Lexington meet them today? Distinctive Character The major road pattern and distribution of continuous building, detached building, and open space found in Lexington is unique, like a thumbprint, and on first impression, equally lacking in distinction from others. Once within the co. .ercial center, one could be within Arlington, or Waith: . (Main Street, not Moody Street) , or any of a number of other places. There is perha•s more pseudo-co_ . . :n n:ton than in t ese. A•er _o° tieso{, ��un ies, b t the Utteranisn't. strong y , a ger c within the Center are in no respect die- tinctive, The distinctiveness of Lexington's Center, such as it is, lies in being completely surrounded by non-co .ercial develop- ment, rather than being the usual focal point in a more or less continuous string of co0i .ercial development. Blurred though they gray be to the east and south, the limits of Lex- ington Center are clearer than those in most co. unities. Even this characteristic is shared by a number of other nearby centers, including Concord and Winchester, The first goal, distinctiveness, clearly isn't being met. Symbolic Congruence Looking like just another center, as discussed above, Lexin:ton Center ob + = : - to s j, = f _ =,ive- cogsof y i 3' serves. gl f unityhmustlnevitably bae distinctive nasstheoco unity „w itself. Green-Center Connection u A profit-serving goal of connection and continuity be- tween wY the historical area and the couercial area „.s another sought-after goal, The connection barely exists; only the Cary Library makes an effort to provide a connection. Easily Understood Pattern and Contents The long-time resident finds it hard to believe that any- one could get confused in so simple a center as Lexington's, but in fact there are a number of persistent sources of dis- orientation for visitors and new residents, and occasionally even for long-term residents. -41.. ;w .ma /7:1: 70:177/ 7:7, mmp J ,Jd Q,fir M I// r n :Hu' 40 Jt A ,n ✓' 1)t, "„ i a le n" e7 '' r i 'm (d," r"-", , 12 The branching road system of Massachusetts Avenue, Bedford I , Street, and Hancock Street is probably the most common source ;' ' of confusion. Another is the difficulty in distinguishing be- tween Grant Street and Edison Way, and a related inability to recall the positions of the Post Office and the Edison sub- , 11 station. The one-way road system south of Massachusetts Avenue ,'P° leads to confusion as to how to get into the Waltham Street- 1 ' Muzzey Street parking lot, and how to reverse direction once having done so. A lack of strong internal landmarks, a lack of major dif- 1 ferentiation among the minor roads, lack of an orientation device such as Nantucket's topography, and a lack of clear I district definition all contribute to the problem. ImageabilityII Internal clarity is one aspect of imageability as dis- cussed above. Another is the memorableness of the Center • taken as a whole. A month after visiting here, how well does some kind of image of Lexington Center persist in the mind of I. a visitor? Here the distinction sought is not between Edison I ; Way and Grant Street, but between Lexington and the mass of other suburban downtown areas. 1, . lh Lexin:ton would be e1_-remembered if it were • .ctive. � ,� ° , It would be even easier to recollect the Center if the visua I, image and the functional pattern reinforced one another like a giant physical mnemonic. That is, if focal structures housed major activities; if colonial-appearing structures really were colonial; if any design "theme" reflected the essence of the place, and wasn't a meaningless veneer. The image would also be stronger if the internal struc- ture were clearer, so the Edison Way-Grant Street confusion „I isn't entirely irrelevant. In all of these ways, the usage- 1 ftability of the Center as a whole could be strengthened beyond �, , its present dinar 1.. �. Attractiveness . 1 The degree to which the previously-discussed objectives lm are satisfied is a measure of the success of the Center in achieving attractiveness. The elements which compose the Cen- ter were earlier noted as generally lacking design distinction, I A A as is the structure of interrelationships which should connect 1H them. The heavy private support for this study is evidence that not only does the Center lack outstanding attractiveness, ��' but also that the people whose business is based there are well 's aware of that failing. 1 1 0 -42- '� M 6I TIE SON OF COMPARISONS The three comparative centers chosen are all generally judged to be visually' successful; all, with the possible ex- 1� ception of Greenfield, more successful than Lexington. Ex: Ana- tion of them, howeuer, reveals no simple rules for Lexington to follow. An excessively wide street is feared in Lexington, yet ?1 Nantucket's widely hailed Main Street is nearly as wide, and Greenfield's is fully as wide as Massach '-etts Avenue will ever be without suffering thereby, because the relationships of width to scale of enclosing el- .ents, or to pace of mov- "gent, or to surface textures, are good ones in the successful examples. "a a Lack of clear district termination appears to be a problem in Lexington, but this is a "fault" which Nantucket turns to an asset, with gradual transition of use easily acco"z" odated 1 within a coon esthetic of scale and materials. Clearly there can be more than one successful means of district transition; perhaps Lexington should use several. A narrow r= sge of materials and colors in use is success- ful in Nantucket, just as a wide range succeeds in Concord. Building heights vary little in Nantucket, widely in Green- field, in each case without vie A. ha . Signs perpendicular to the face of buildings are found in all three comparative centers, but are prohibited on esthetic grounds in Lexington. Such signs positively add to the visual success of Nantucket, don't hurt in Concord, and probably are no worse than the flat signs in Greenfield. On the other hand, each successful town center example provides a finite sense of enclosure to the main shopping street. 1'' Each employs the contrast of natural vegetation agai. t build- ing hardness. Each has an easily understood th- ue; Nantucket's narrow building ver1cular, int "f .ts scale, strong Main Street form; Greenfield's broad curving Main Street with arching elms; Concord's small-scale building contrast, and historical continuity. , flfl iP The major lesson gleaned from looking at other centers is that hard and fast rules are difficult to make with any validity, except at the broadest level of stated interrelationships. The next report in this series, an extraction of visual guide- lines for design in the Center, will be guided by this cau- tioning. _ k -43- { ro, I°i4"u of ( I� IU �II VISUAL GUIDELINES• uIp The study of "Design Objectives" earlier noted aspects of building design and location which are appropriately in- corporated in a plan. This report contains specific guide- line recommendations on those aspects of design in Lexington Center. Relevant design considerations can be divided into two types: those which apply equally to all structures in the Center under all circumstances, and those which vary in appli- cation from place to place, and are most easily described through a map. A visual design plan for the Center should deal with both types of consideration, and would be a guide to modifications in zoning, architectural controls, and the location and design of public improvements. (See page 22.) ASSERTIVENESS The first distinction made on the visual design plan is between assertiveand non-assertive structures, a "black" and "white" generalization of a characteristic in reality having many fine shades of variation. As discussed in the "Design Objectives" report, "assertiveness" is increased by contrast, whether in building shape, scale, color, materials, or propor- tion, and is also affected by location. Lexington Center to- day has few self-assertive structures, providing a largely neutral background for change. Structures which are prominent visually should also be outstanding in terms of the activity which they house, or should be so located that they serve an important visual func- tion as a useful landmark, or district termination, or axis M� closure. The Depot building, one of Lexington's few highly assertive structures, once obeyed those rules well by both I' closing an axis and housing a function of unique public sig- nificance, no longer really the case. i. The Central Block occupies a site of critical visual importance where, irrespective of function, a highly self- Ny assertive structure would serve as a useful landmark and as "V r._ a distinct r in do similar site and visual cti n c? could be created at Wallis Court. Based on our analysis, these are the only two new locations in the Center appropri- ately occupied e - ti structures. existing iv structures a where they are it iv visual benefit. These are indi- cated fo i-c r preservation of their presentvisual , whether the present structure is preserved or not. Other lo- cations presently o o-a ti cc self-assertive e not so-designated on , indicating long-range prefer- ence for a less-assertive building in the event of any changes. In all locations i non-assertive r , the is directive is to close i neighboring t , but not necessarilydupli- cation their r l scale i and all other to without i v be achieved closely , for I , scale, proportions and roofline, while Is: ying others, say materials c - visual tois due just suchit i s eauniformity. DETACHED V. CONTINUOUS STRUCTURES A detached true yards ll neighboring i i , whereas continuous com- mon with t r. Again thisv - i i ica- tio , since a long detachedstructure visually approx' Hates a continous one (is o i or detached), but the distinctionis useful . Random intermixture of these two i rarely visually c 1. Until recent years, Avenue was disrupted e i structures signed for structural continuity by a few old detached struc- 1 , t , Waltham Street'sfrontage is i joined, greatly improving visual cohesion. ` • f . On the other hand, the difference in spatial effect -e c a tool in heighten- ing contrast streets ric , and in ieg functional i ti , as t oen the pedestrian-oriented and auto-oriented pti of r. Planning for this building characteristic is thus useful in two ways. By im- proving is y of the extent of each structuralgroup, disruptive intermixtures can iii pos- itive use of the spatial contrast o i le, a strong of Is expression can be gained. i BUILDING DIMENSION The notion of "assertiveness" provides a guideline for I'II III� sudden changes in building size from the generally established size of buildings in any area, but gives no suggestion of the appropriate direction of incremental change from existing conditions. On Bedford Street, for example, new structures between Worthen Road and the Green could be un-assertive in terms of size whether quite bulky, as are many existing nearby structures, or quite small, as are the rest. The visual suc- cess of Bedford Street's approach to the Center hinges on the direction change actually takes. The appearance of the Green depends upon proximate small-scale structures. The Bedford Street sequence should therefore appropriately read as a sharply defined tripartite division from Worthen Road: large scale changing sharply to fine scale (including the Green) back to large scale again at Clarke Street and the commercial Center. In general, large-scale structures should be oriented to large-scale arteries, making Massachusetts Avenue, Waltham Street, and Worthen Road appropriate frontages for large structures. Single family residence precincts should, in general, not include large-scale structures except at exceptional focal points or other sites of unusual significance. Had these guidelines been followed in the past, a number of present vis- ual aberrations would have been avoided. OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS The Visual Design Plan indicates those corners where strong continuity around the corner is important, achieved through continuing display windows, common materials and archi- tectural treatment, and other devices. At other corner loca- tions, continuous pedestrian movement isn't anticipated or being encouraged, so the importance of a "strongly-turned" corner is reduced. „ The plan indicates those structures suggested to be pre- served largely as they are in those cases where outstanding public or institutional buildings serve their visual function exceptionally p ly well. Historic structures are marked for preser- vation, the motivation being retention or restoration of at least fragments of the Town's historic past. Open space which serves a critical visual function has been designated, whether public or private. Those spaces either have historic relevance, or are useful as aids to ori- entation, district definition or have other visual function above that of open space generally. A few present open spaces I ;. -46- �� :a , W r,1, (as at Fletcher Avenue) are not designated as such, indicating that their f action could as well be served elsewhere if a use of the site for other than open space were important. p NON-PL1 N ELEA NTS Typically, architectural control schemes have relied on rules uniform throughout the area in question, or on consider- ation of non-plan elements. "All buildings must be of this or that material", and "All structures shall have this or that style", have been typical requirements. We have little of this nature to suggest for Lexington. All buildings in the Center except churches ought to be low, not over three stories. There could be but few taller ones because of lack of dei -nd, so those few would take on visual prominence beyond functional justification. Slick ma- terials such as porcelain enamel, structural glass, and al . in :. sheet ought probably to be avoided in favor of the rougher I, textures of masonry and traditional wood, but there may well be exceptions to this, which certainly shouldn't be a hard rule. Except for those, the important guidelines are all plan-related, as discussed earlier. E 'NTS NOT INCLUDED Specific selection of a palette of appropriate materials has been avoided be -use it appears unnecessary. Virtually every n- • structure and most major alterations in the Center in the past two decades have been of red brick or clapboard. So long as the assertiveness rules are observed, this trend � . is likely to continue, with any variations being either at points where' a strong "break" is desirable, or being on struc- 1 tures which conform to neighbors in other respects, such as scale, proportion, etc., and therefore don't disrupt the basic continuity. Black and white signs are a siqilarly near-unanimous ';, choice for new co truction, so a sign color guide would be largely irrelevant. Actually, such muted tones are neither 1,1 historically correct nor visually important. Strong hues need not be inappropriate, so long as lighting is not over-bright, and the scale of composition is in keeping with the district. A well-designed multi-hued sign could be a visual asset, while an over-bright or over-large black and white sign could be offensive. V I � -47- i "Scale" means more than just size of building, but also relates to size of elements, as discussed in an earlier re- port. Again, if the "assertiveness" guidelines are followed, scale is bound to be appropriate, either close to that of neighbors, or possibly departing from them in the few sites designated ±or assertive structures. One of the earliest devices for architectural control to was establishment of a uniform cornice line. More recent efforts have added notions about window head or sill heights, sign heights, or other pre-selected lines. To define these as "musts" is to straitjacket the design of buildings whose functional needs vary widely. The designer of every new facade in the Center should take account of these lines in the vicinity o` of his structure, and reflect them in some way appropriate to the visual role of the structure being designed, whether as- sertive or not. In some cases, continuity will be appropriate, in others, it will not. Without advance functional informa- tion, it is impossible to forecast and set explicit guides. IMPLEMENTATION This visual design plan should go through a number of steps in becoming a useful guide. Hopefully, it is useful to at least a limited degree already; the notions contained herein have indirectly influenced one or perhaps more of the new structures now being planned for the Center. To be further useful, this Plan should be reviewed in detail, extended, and revised by the Design Advisory Group, whose suggestions can surely improve it, and whose endorse- ment will give it further weight. The Planning Board might then officially adopt it as a part of the Town's Master Plan. This has no -legal bearing on private construction, but some federally-assisted public improvements can only be made in conformance with a Master Plan. The Plan might then be a guide for future zoning changes, which have direct bearing on some of the qualities involved. It would be a guide to the location of public structures, im- portant elements in the visual environment. The Board of Appeals, Historic Districts Commission, and any other public review agencies might then use this plan as one means of ex- plaining requirements in advance of application, and as a par- tiai basis for determinations. A visual design plan is a new ; tool, not found elsewhere. It could be a powerful one, It is clear that this Plan is only a fragment of a plan. Boundaries of the area studied kept expanding, as edge con- ditions repeatedly required study outside the assigned area. i• -48- u"- Al Just as an activities plan for the Center should be a component II of a town-wide activities plan, a visual design scheme for the Center should be only a component of a town-wide visual design plan. Preparation of such a plan should be high on the Planning Board's list of studies to be carried out. • i 111, • `i •w iuv -49- TOWN -. V IDE BEAUTT ' ICATION PROGRAM Iy The current planning effort in Lexington Center is a "crash program", whose timing in relation to other planning ef- forts has been dictated by pragmatic concern over opportunities to guide the large-scale changes now taking place in the Center. Just as it would have been preferable, had time permitted, to do circulation studies for the Center in the context of a pre- viously prepared town-wide circulation study, so too would it have been preferable to prepare the recommendations for Center beautification in the context of a previously prepared town- wide beautification study. The relationship of beautification efforts in the Center to efforts throughout the town is just as close as the relationship of Massachusetts Avenue traffic to Worthen Road traffic. Because of this, some consideration has been given here to a beautification program for the town as a whole. Ji WHAT IS BEAUTIFICATION? Webster's relates beautification to embellishment, and among many in the environmental design professions, the word "beautification" has acquired a pejorative connotation because that. ueae Visual objectives are rarely achieved by simple em.ellishment1 Many well-intentioned beautification_Bc,h . ovolvin ant;,, signs, and landscaping have utterly Bailed t make any worthwhile„ sjrovement because these embellishments wee .e-only -superficial,_ aJJ.ng .nog.change_in,._the..;hasjc visual, ,and, 'kuceptual ..relationships, which are the primaryelements by which visuaLobjectxves-may...be,. ach`„w . . _. men . n ,w � ,. ..: In the design for the Center, five specific visual objec- p �^ tives are being sought: tl ,d 1) A distinctive character for Lexington Center, to dis- tinguish it from the mass of similarly sized and located centers. !'I 2) A symbolic congruence among the Center's appearance, its functions, and the community it serves. 3) Clear visual relation between the Green and the Center. 4) An easily understood pattern. 5) A memorable Center. 1 I "B-autifica _ -" by e It �� � - achi.evin� ac leve _onto in the Center achieved t� these goals .This.....�z�v,Q��,,,,�,..far more nem•e].xishmen l p g. ructu iSs Wild i-ctivity it- i ". of roadways,... s o� �,nvo . es .r7 ats mwn st �,_.�� the design embellishmentan¢ involves -the, = ' •_ voly . . ...,,..,, g - than RS °a s 91 ruc� -gut° �it s��p g . �� a e ,. 11: ac• ' .-n th�.. .. :Q objectives. �°.,°.. . . ,, o °...°,., ... Beautification efforts for Lexington as a whole should similarly be based on a set of relatively concrete objectives, ;q1 and not be a simple program to willy-nilly plant trees and put 1 wires underground. To .-wide objectives should be established pill only following an analysis such as that carried out for the Center, but as a point of departure, the more general objectives I used for the Center would serve well. Distinctive character I � might not be sought exclusively for the town as a whole, but rather also for its several parts, helping to create a clear perceptual hierarchy from identification with a house and a block, to identification of position within a district, to a position within Lexington, to a position within Greater Boston. A valid objective for the region is surely the development of �' an environment rich in visual choices and contrasts at a scale broader than that of individual structures. Lexington can help IIS the region achieve this by development of distinctive internal 1,1I character. 1 ili Con_ruence is an im.ortant visual objective at all scales. ,. , • ,s look should bear rela on o w•a the are. V sual .ro ' . - , - , . - . . - : - . .t-d : ' . . . , o s'mbolic is • - : .- . Visual distinctions between areas should coincide with social or functional distinctions. The Center should look I' like the center, outskirts should look like outskirts. Munici- pal boundaries, if they are really significant, should be visible 1, through more significant means than high, -y signs. 0 A pattern which is easily understood is even more important 0 at the cof"unity scale than at the scale of the Center, since �, the problem of confusion inhibiting full use and enjoyment of the enviro• 'ent is greater at the l. ger scale. Few residents can confidently find their way aro .d all parts of the town; efforts should be i -de to 0 .ke it easier for them to do so, again with devices more meaningful than signs. Later studies are likely to add further objectives, but the above should form an adequate basis for initial design of I . a beautification program. The scope of a beautification progr. ii as defined here is far broader than just fieep-up and tree planting progr- fis. Geographically it must include the entire toi . . Activities would include studies, adoption of regulations, and execution ' of development progr- is, as well as exhortive efforts to guide developmental choices in a way which serves the goals selected. -51- 11 1 . TRE PROPOSED PROGRAM I Present efforts in the Center have focussed attention on i the public role in community appearance, have resulted in or- Y' ganization of a Design Advisory Group of skilled professionals, ji. and are providing an example of the interrelationship of func- tional and visual components of design, and of how studies, regulations, public development, and exhortation can combine to A help achieve visual objectives. This Center effort needs only °` another year before its lessons can be fully developed; there- H fore a major town-wide effort is appropriately considered only 1N a year away. That in large part conditioned the following pro- posed beautification outline. ' BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM Public Improve- i Year Studies Possible Regulations ments 1966 Continue in Center Revised Center zoning Center Phase I [' >ro 1967 Townwide visual Center Phase II , analysis and plan e: 1968 Neighborhood New architectural Residential area Centers controls effort 1969 Underground wiring New sign, zoning Neighborhood regulations centers 1970 Mass. Ave.- Underground wiring Center Phase III 1 Bedford St. In 1967, the design approach used in the Center should be applied to the town as a whole. By then, the Long-Range Finan- W tial Study will be far along but not complete, a good stage for meaningful interaction with a visually-based approach to many of the same questions. The lessons of the Center program should w,P ' by then be clear. The town- . . -1 anal ,sis an. • ..uld • s .definition an• ci a f:i�i-on-o.f ivesIII ' lficat le.,, where .,.ex sseni' visualIonnssd and ob eitions, nes arum,at rid clgsign specific analysisof thepera� implications aeceptuve�'� included might be of the proposals being made in the Long-Range Financial Study. Later studies would be made of the specific problem areas identified in the overall plan. The listed studies are just a ! suggestion of those which might emerge from the 1967 town-wide : analysis. 11 -52- 1 Revisions to the Zoning Bylaw have major bearing on beauti- fication, as the Center studies have shown. Revisions in the Center are due this year, and for the rest of the town, if in- Ipii dicated by it, following the town-wide visual plan. Architec- tural �o° tura], controls are a relatively old story in Lexington now, dating back nearly a decade within Historic Districts. Given a new basis and rationale by a visual plan, architectural controls might well be extended, as discussed in other phases of the ( gym Center Plan. The town-wide effort might well suggest controls over areas or building types other than the coverage suggested only by analysis of the Center situation. �. ,. Sign regulations in Lexington also date back many years, tli although the current set are only 8 years old. As mentioned elsewhere, these are in need of revision, but that revision ry� should reflect needs not only in the Center, but in the entire cou »unity, so should follow further studies. Underground wiring is a probable means of assisting com- munity beautification. At present, the utilities are less than enthusiastic about it in this region, but attitudes and tech- niques are rapidly improving. Five years from now it may well be feasible to plan for both requirement of underground wires in new construction - id relocation to underground of some exist- ing overhead wires. Public investment in landscaping, street furnishings, and wire relocation is tentatively prograu ,ed for this five-year period to allow work in the Center to be executed in three steps, and to allow at least first efforts in a demonstration residen- tial area and in some neighborhood co.uercial centers. AVAILABLE RESOURCES Municipal expenditures in Lexington are approaching the $15 million per year nrk; beautification in the Center is es- timated to cost the town less than $15,000 per year for both capital and operating costs, or less than one-tenth of one per- cent of town expenditures. The fiscal situation in Lexington is indeed serious, but even discounting fiscal benefits accruing from this program, beautification is clearly within the Town's financial capabilities. Median incomes in Lexington exceed those in all but a hand- � WM ' ful of Massachusetts couflunities, so the possibilities of private financial contribution to beautification efforts shouldn't be overlooked. The program for the Center explicitly suggests private subscription of perhaps $25,000; smaller private con- tributions might aid efforts in other areas. -53- w 1 1I 111 Even more important than fiscal resources, Lexington has 11 the human resources to organize, design, promote and execute a �'! beautification program. Community appearance is important to Lexington, as evidenced by the generally high level of home maintenance, the Town's long-standing controls over signs, soil x �" 1�i� removal, junk yards, and architecture within historic districts, , , and by strongly supported municipal programs of tree planting W and improvements to public areas, which annually cost in the ,' vicinity of $50,000. ill 11 Resident in the community are many skilled design prates- ad sionals who have demonstrated in this program their willingness il'° to participate in community improvement. This nearly unique concentration of design talent is a major resource to be drawn fir, on. a Finally, the present environment in Lexington is a resource well-suited to a beautification effort. Lexington is not ugly, and it has few eyesores. It has a perceptible form, distinguish- I able from neighboring development. There is, however, no strong jug "inherited" form which seriously limits future possibilities, g; and few will deny that the community could be more attractive p than it is. Responsibility for initiating the broad town-wide program ,` logically lies with the Planning Board, since the next steps �mi required are planning ones, and must be coordinated with otherIii current planning efforts. The Planning Board should enlist !� I,' the aid of the Design AdvisoryGroupto help � ,` g guide design and execution efforts, just as they are doing for the Center. Also enlisted in an advisory role should be such groups as the His- toric Districts Commission, the Lexington Garden Club, the l'; Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations likely to be able to contribute leadership and ideas. w Concrete execution steps will largely be carried out by I { I departments under jurisdiction of the Selectmen; their partici- pation should be sought right from the initial stages. I '" The resources of existing environment, people, and finance I '`" are all rich enough to permit Lexington to conduct an exemplary l` beautification program, in which the current effort for Lexing- " :. ton Center is but one element. : III A -54- 111 t. fl DESIGN REVIEWAND CONTROL 101 In a landmark decision in 1954, the Supreme Court held that: "The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclu- � 9 sive... The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the coil , city should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as wiall as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled." In the years since then, the legitimate concern of govern- ment for beauty has expanded dramatically, until today it is one of the major elements in national domestic policy. Lexing- ton , . .. Lex in g- on has not lagged in its involvement. A- . - b rug socaremov .x signs, d Historic Districts en � n� gton=veia among the-first is� oftheir k�nd -in— / � / M . susSubstantial—pi-Asti-Ix- dxpenditures 4 are annua made for street trees and other beautification efforts. Cur- rent proposals before the town meeting include a beautification effort in the Center, and extension of the areas within His- toric Districts Commission control. Few in Lexington today will argue with the appropriateness of public efforts to achieve beauty as long as they involve generally accepted concepts of beauty - more trees, fewer bill- boards. Deliberate public guidance of the design of individual buildings has no such general acceptance, despite (or because of) nearly a decade of experience with one form of it, and despite generally broadening concepts of the appropriate role ?� of government in the quest for beauty. The aim of this report is to re-examine the question of design guidance, and to see if it might legitimately be used in Lexington Center as a positive means of gaining a more satis- factory enviro. "ent, and not just a means of preventing seriously detrimental change. 1Herman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) . -55- f THE RATIONALE FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The reasons for public involvement in environmental change in the vicinity of historical monuments have been fully ex- plained in Lexington many times. There are, in reality, very few structures in Lexington which are survivors of the Revolu- tionary War (only two of the structures around the Green, for example) . These therefore deserve extraordinary efforts at u, preservation. It would be wonderful if the visitor to the �, �seeonocould ate for tbatthe bcharact`er o t"he �76 environment, it distractions from the sur iv ying_r.emains.;nan.,..and abo ,dut at l be minimzzea „ as ed .o the Historic Distzicts CsQmmi� ,L,w t � hen it was es- ce .., townmetingacceptance` of l9 � ,t, te enabling legislation. There re disagreements within the community as to method in these areas: is stylistic imitation "appropriate" for con- struction in the controlled districts or not? The adopted legis- lation requires "appropriateness" without defining it, so the Historic District Commission is free to make its own determin- ations in each case before it. While this philosophical dis- agreement exists, there is general concurrence on the desirabil- ity of controls to ensure appropriate settings for the town's historical heritage. s, Outside of the immediate environs of historic structures, the rationale for design control is quite different. . Lexing- ton is in reality a dynamic twentieth-century community whose environment appropriately should reflect that reality. It also should reflect the reality that the community is uncommonly ' concerned with its appearance. Beauty is no less important in North Lexington than near the Green; if design guidance can help achieve beauty, then it is in the public good everywhere that it can reasonably be applied, and not just in isolated spots. y{ The objectives, however, would be those of the town-wide beau- tification �! effort - distinctive character, symbolic congruence, f and an easily understood pattern - not simply those of historic 1 '., preservation. ; Quite are i ,vo e,� o ki toric jectives. The two are not antagonistic, and can readily over- lap, as they clearly do in the Center. The vital questions are those of what should be done in non-historic areas, and what should be done in the areas of overlap. I�� upho DESIRABLE GUIDANCE CHARACTERISTICS Experience is rapidly accumulating in the public guidance of private design. Historically-motivated control districts are proliferating, and few urb=. renewal progrns now fail to include some type of design review and control. The "new towns" Many of the lessons of these efforts a design control mechanism. M being built :normally! include ffortscan be applied to Lexing- ton in fashioning a guidance program for extension beyond pres- II ent limits. First, the basis for control decisions should be made ex- plicit. Even in the relatively simple case of historic dis- tricts, accusations of arbitrary action arise. Outside the area of direct historic relevance, the issue becomes sharper. The aims of the control effort should be made as explicit as feasible, so that the control is done through application of stated criteria, reducing the likelihood that a different set of reviewers would reach different conclusions. If no building lacking a pitched roof will be acceptable, the rules should state this in advance. If flat roofs are acceptable here but not there, the rules should be supplemented with a map. Adoption of explicit rules would serve three f actions. First, it would allow clear public expression on what the rules should be. Second, it would minimize issues concerning ar- bitrary action. Third, it would enable designers to fruit- fully direct their efforts right from the start, and not have to learn what is wanted through rejection of their design ef- forts. These explicit rules and their application should retain flexibility, which almost seems self-contradictory, but isn't. Rather, it means that not all aspects of design should be in- eluded in the rules, and therefore not all aspects of design should be controlled. For ex= ple, EDA's visual analysis of the Center cle, ly points to the desirability of a tall struc- ture to replace the present Central Block, but a design control which required such a structure would be pointless, since the economics of the location dictate that any new building be a l 0 one..._o..�_. Analysis suggeststhatmost (but not m-all� s{t.,.ructures in the Center should ggistharmonzevithir •; ed-iau neiit ls. enough to state in the rules VIM% sum quiet Farmony is sought. To spell out the means of achieving it through material, color, height, or other limitations would straight-jacket design, possibly encounter absolute program- impossibilities, and in any event is unnecessary. Flexibility also involves the issue of appeal. Zoning decisions can be appealed to a local Board of Appeals quite simply, at minim a cost, and normally without need for legal II 1 y' -57- ipl i � J heli;_:„ Appeal from Historic District Commission decisions is o the Sia r .1 � r �� �,.1 ,.�.ep,acomplex and costly undertaking.seIt zw1• be said, therefore,,, Mt-zoning, �;, r, ts- r �- rules, is more flexible, at least on ", appeal, than is Historic District Zoning, despite its lack of explicit guidelines. The design guidance rules are to be applied to profession- ally designed structures. Their application should involve the eve •_ - -- . . , � - o�� •eten - - While there is a role for the layman in design review, it is important that the designer respect the reviewer, a principle widely employed. The Boston Redevelopment Authority has drawn from the entire metropolitan community to staff its design re- view panel with professionals of generally recognized excellence, while Washington, D.C. draws design reviewers from across the entire nation. Finally, there is a self-evident need for administrative : . reasonability in design review, which becomes more critical as the area encompassed grows larger. About 200 homes are built every year in Lexington: elaborate confrontation of designer and reviewer for all of them doesn't seem reasonably feasible. The geographic area of design review must be restricted, or the rules must be such as to permit the mass of new structures to pass without great effort by either the builder and designer or the review group. CONTROL METHODS Deed Restrictions There is a far broader range of design guidance possibili- ties than is commonly realized. For example, the method of using deed covenants is widely used in urban renewal, and could be widely used in Lexington. For example, the new Hunt Block, UI the new Central Block, and the new structure on Waltham Street adjoining Anthony's all involve private acquisition of public land. In each such case, deed restrictions can be inserted, whereby the purchaser covenants to observe whatever design con- ditions are specified, or to follow specified review procedure. Much of the expected growth of the Center will similarly have at least some involvement with public land, opening the possibility of this means of guidance, certainly an equitable 11 technique, since it involves restrictions willingly accepted by the purchaser at the time of purchase and not subsequently imposed. -58- � ' ro -? Y N t Public Example Each time the municipality constructs a building, it has an opport pity to guide by example. A library addition and a new police station are likely public building projects in or near the Center in the next decade, with public parking struc- tures also advocated. These buildings could contribute sig- nificantly �. to the design objectives established for the Center by demonstrating how a building can express its twentieth cen- tury i ctional and technological basis, while remaining appro- priate to au historic setting. Too seldom has Lexington demon- strated design excellence in its public building efforts. " p II Persuasion lel At present, a certain amo .t of design guidance is being �µ exerted in the Cent- through persuasive efforts by the Design Advisory Group, an informal group of local designers. ;�.- •. I, �I � �eet, .gs have been held with buildin: investors in an effort to e clear wha ,„ the ove-ra , ;vlsua oiljectives being; sbu;,y int or 'rlledate r'e, na d of lend whatever assts . ice. possible in the select . , o designers, and. in the fitting o ,;ctioni -- re fore . ... q.n is of i object vim. ants"of individual structures iso thevisual Center. ........ .._ . . . ... . . .. Persuasion sounds weak but shouldn't be under-rated. For at least one new structure in the Center, these persuasive ef- forts of this highly respected group of designers will probably have more impact on the final design than will the legally binding strict es of the Historic Districts Connission. The energy expended per case is enormous, and clearly must be limited to critical cases, however. Police Power Controls Lexington uses three types of police power control to guide design: the zoning bylaw (whose esthetic bases are all indirect), sign regulations, and the Historic Districts Com- mission. No permit to build can be issued until the require- ments of all three are -t (in districts where the Historic Districts Co ission has jurisdiction). The zoning and sign bylaws have explicit rules stating criteria for approval or re- jection, while the laws establishing the Historic Districts Con ission (Ch. 447, Acts of 1956, amended by Ch. 105, Acts of �;� 1950) gives only vague guidelines. This police-power approach is far more generally applicable l` than covenants, guidance by ex=:«ple, or persuasion. It applies whether public land is involved or not, whether structures are public or private, whether o ,:ers are sympathetic or not. It -59- IA 11 is because of this sweeping applicability that use of police- power controls as a means of esthetic guidance has been re- sisted, and any extension of existing controls must be carefully weighed. Mandatory Review There is an intermediate step between the type of control exerted through the Historic Districts Commission and the in- formal persuasion used by the Design Advisory Group. With this I procedure all design proposals would be required by law to be1 1 fi submitted to a review body, whereupon the review bodyto be jI employ persuasive but not binding arguments to guide design. Given a highly skilled review board and an interested public opinion to appeal to, this intermediate type of guidance can be effective, as demonstrated in Annapolis and a number of other communities where this type of control has existed. GUIDANCE FOR LEXINGTON CENTER Lexington Center needs all the design help it can get; ° j more than just one of the above approaches to guidance could 'I appropriately be used, and more than one public body is likely to be involved. At present, the Historic Districts Commission, 14 ' ' the Selectmen, the Planning Board, the Center Revitalization Committee, the Design Advisory Group, and a variety of con- sultants are involved in the Center. There may be fewer agen- cies involved later, but there will always be more than one. Because of the multiple types of guidance .appropriately used, the multiplicity of agencies involved, and the desirability of pre-stated explicit criteria for design guidance, agreement should be reached on a general guide for design. The Visual Design Plan has been drafted to assist in reaching that agree- ment. It has been discussed in an earlier report ("Visual Guidelines"). . The visual design plan would not have the legally binding power of a zoning bylaw, but would serve many functions, in ad- I dition to its coordinative one. There remains considerable feeling that judgement of design quality is purely subjective, so design shouldn't be publiclyguided. Discussionof a visual al design plan is likely to reveal that there are quite a number of aspects to design which are not "one man's meat, another IaG'. man's poison", as in the recent Lexington Minute-Man debate 1: over the relative merits of the Isrudeniial Center and- the 1" Harvard married students' housing. ' The design of individual buildings is relevant to the pub- ` lic interest only as it affects the broad visual environment. ,' Just as one cannot say categorically that one design of window 11. -60- u 0 Y,'< *4 viN is good, another bad, without reference to the context of the entire uilding the indow is a part of, from a public point of view one cannot ==y this or that building is good or bad ex- cept with reference to the context of the enviro. fient. By ad- vance public statement of the desired context, the designer is enabled to design with reference not only to the present en-f V; viro. fient but also with reference to a probable future. With no ch= .ge in legal structure, but given agreement upon a Vis : 1 Design Plan, a great deal of effective guidance could be achieved, using the Historic Districts Cou. ission con- A ; trols in the areas where they now apply, covenants where pos- sible, good public design in every case, and persuasive efforts by the Design Advisory Group in all cases not adequately handled �d by other methods. This would call for close cooperation between the Design Advi-'ry Group and the Historic Districts Con «ission, I, and suggests that a few from each group should, whenever pop- H I sible, sit in on the meetings of the other group when dealing with the area of CO. fi;on interest. Even this, however, would give inadequate public control, in the view of fi =ny. A proposal has been advanced to extend the area of Historic Districts Cofififission control to include all of the Center, and subst: +tial areas east of it, Such ex- pansion at this time is of doubtful merit for a variety of reasons. First, the rationale of design control outside the ififfediate environs of historic structures is quite different from that of Historic Districts, as discussed earlier, To tend the District into areas of only remote historical relevance is to stretch the Historic Districts rationale beyond reason- ability. !' Second, the Historic Districts CofAssion and its pro- cedures* as now constituted, fail to meet the criteria for an optim guidance progr i , again as discussed earlier. The bases for control decisions have never been made explicit as an advance guide for design. Reasonable flexibility of appli- cation has not been exhibited. The review body itself has not �- yet earned the general respect of the design con •ity. Finally, th= e is the administrative issue of how the Coifission can find time to fairly deal with all exterior changes in all structures in a vastly enlarged district. The =fi;ergency of the voluntary Design Advisory Group marks a major change in the potentials for design control. This group includes many extremely talented individuals, whose con- tributions could be great. Until the role of that group has been better clarified through experience, it seems unwise to make regulatory changes in the area of design controls. -61- Another future potential with great bearing on extension of regulatory controls is the town-wide visual analysis and plan proposed for execution in 1967. This study would analyse the visual structure of the entire community, and would allow a community-wide perspective based on careful plan analysis for the recommendation of district limits. Once out of sight of the few primary historical nodes, the simple historical perspective is an inadequate basis for establishment of con- trols. The town-wide study would supply an adequate basis. It may be that the Historic Districts Commission should in time be enlarged to include members explicitly drawn from the design professions. That step, plus recognition of the I; different bases for determining "appropriateness" proximate to and further from historic monuments, plus adoption of explicit plan-based criteria for design guidance, would remove most ob- jections to district extension. At that time, the question might be reopened. The order in which things are done is of vital importance. Just thereas is�aere need temporal coordination organizational�o ��'theCenter, of ef- forts. Our recommendation is as follows: DESIGN GUIDANCE EVOLUTION 1966 No changes in Historic Districts Commission or district boundaries. Endorsement of a Visual Design Plan for the Center by the Planning Board, Design Advisory Group, Historic Dis- tricts Commission, Selectmen, Chamber of Commerce(?) . Develop Historic District Commission - Design Advisory Group coordination. 1967 Prepare town-wide Visual Design Plan (see "A Town-Wide Beautification Program") . Based on town-wide plan, prepare recommended guidance program. 1968 Endorsement of town-wide Visual Design Plan by various groups. Enactment of revised design guidance program, or initiation of new legislation, if required. -62- w. . AG SIGN BYLAW REVISIONS Signs are one of the primaryelements in the Center's visual enviro' lent. These are carefully regulated through a complex bylaw, which limits sign height to three feet, requires attachment parallel to the building wall, and prohibits moving 0� or flashing signs, The results of application of these regulations over many years are not dramatic, but significant. Experience in the Center indicates the appropriateness of two changes in the by- law, one to ease an existing restriction, one to impose a new one. Signs perpendicular to the building face have been pro- hibited pres ii:ably because they would be obtrusive, which of course is what a sign is supposed to be, and leading to clutter, a little of which the over-tidy Center could use. To be sure, Central Square, Moody Street, or many other places have ugly perpendicular signs, but they are no uglier than the flat signs, just more obtrusive. On the other hand, the visual characters of Concord, Nantucket, or any of n erous other examples are enhanced by well-designed perpendicular signs. The "ale-house" flat board sign, perpendicular to the , building face, has historic relevance long preceding Lexington's great moment in history. St bridge Village, Williamsburg, and other historic centers widely employ them. For location of a store along the length of a long on- street center such as Lexington's, perpendicular signs have no peer, even consider- ing their tendency to block one another out. A first step toward permitting perpendicular signs is sug- gested in a proposed bylaw revision, which would permit such signs so long as they use neither lettering nor interior ill 'in- ation, limiting them to graphic symbols - a ste. l.ing teakettle at the lunch spot, a boot at the shoe store, and so on. Boston and Cr bridge have a few such signs, European centers typicallyhave more. could � . per- dd interes d haps contributehto-the uniqueaf lavorrbe :ng oughtts �ornLex ngton I -63- 1I In time, other types of perpendicular signs might be al- lowed, but only on approval using some review procedure, and a suitable review group doesn't exist today. In the meantime, this "unbalanced" regulation should stimulate development of the sought-for type of sign by giving it special privilege. Added restriction is suggested concerning brightness. Several recently erected signs have been widely criticized, largely on grounds that they are too bright. , Brightness controls are rare in sign regulations because the subject is so complex. The real issue is the brightness range, or contrast. By assuming a minimum background brightness ! I based on street lighting, maximum allowable brightness can be set, measured in foot-lamberts, an unfortunately obscure measure i. which doesn't readily translate into watts or other easily de- terminable guide. By giving approximate equivalents in watts, conformity of the vast majority of signs can be easily de- termined, For the occasional exception, a simple meter reading can determine compliance after the fact, but only an engineer- ing appraisal (1/2 hour job) can pre-determine brightness. This review of the sign bylaw raises a number of other questions about the regulation of signs outside of the Center: for example, are the regulations set for the Center equally appropriate in industrial areas? They apply with equal force. Once again this suggests the desirability of a town-wide visual 1! analysis on which to base a revision of this town-wide code. PROPOSED SIGN BYLAW AMENDMENTS ARTICLE III REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS Section 2. Business Areas A. Accessory Signs 1.a Location Amend the third sentence to read as follows: "If affixed to a wall, it shall be parallel with and not project more than twelve (12) inches from the face of such wall; except that if such sign employs neither lettering , of any kind nor internal illumination, it may be perpen- dicular to the wall and project up to thirty-six (36) inches from the face of the wall." ry 1.f Illumination Insert between the first and third paragraphs a new para- graph to read as follows: n1 -64- • ll "Brilliance of illuminated signs shall at no point, ex- • cept in the stroke of ill tinated letters, exceed 150 foot-i- bents, which is the approximate brightness of a light-colored sign ill .inated by incandescent flood- on, lights totalling 35 watts per square foot of sign area, or of an interior-.ill, ffinated sign with fluorescent light totalling 5 watts per square foot of sign area," gy . � I E1 D .. • .• w -65- Hit ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT ' 8 1 1 9 7 5 ACTIVITY LEVELS Grand plans ca. .ot be fulfilled if there is insufficient market demand to t n paper buildings into real ones. For that reason, estimation of fut a levels of space demand in Lexington Center is a critical prelimin. y step to prep. ing spatial de- .e signs. In October, 1964, E.D.A. completed an . .clysis of 1975 space demands for the Center. Since that time, new information from the 1963 U.S. Census of Business has provided more accu- rate - les information; the 1965 Decennial Census of Population has provided another population benchmark; =hployment data t"._ years more current has become available, and more has been learned about plans for expansion or n=, construction in com- petitive centers, In briefest s i.ary, the 1964 estimate suggested that, if space were available, activity levels in the Center might in- crease about 50% between 1963 and 1975. A study of the more recent available information suggests no ch- •ges in that es- t ddite, but only increases confidence in it. Whereas retail sales in Lexington Center are estimated to have been less than $10 million in 1963, they are projected to be capable of rising to $15 million by 1975, despite some $7,000,000 al . . 1 pur- chases by Lexington residents at the future Burlington Shopping Center. Whereas in 1963 perhaps a little over 500 persons were employed in the Center in businesses other than retail trade, by 1975 this may have risen to over 800 persons. 01 There is, however, nothing certain about this growth. u ' First, little sales growth is likely to occur .;less additional � "prime" frontage can be created, since there is no such frontage vacant today. Simple in emental growth cannot, in Lexington's situation, create - ch frontage. Second, employment growth in services other than retail trade also depends upon creation of first-class space; there is no presently evident great demand by such activities for ordinary space on side streets or on upper floors, but rather great selectivity is evidenced by them. ' "III ..66- H 0 `b ti Neither is there any amount of growth in the Center "neces- HI to provide services to a town projected to grow from 30,000 persons in 1963 to 40,000 in 1975. The service needs of the Lexington population will in any event be met only par- tially in the Center; what proportion "should" be met there is "! a complex judgement, and far from a determinate one. Finally, the activity levels projected above need not be , A upper limits, any more than they are necessarily lower limits. d A great deal depends upon the quality of environment which is conceived and developed for the Center; a strong enough plan may well create its own demand, and in that sense, become self- fulfilling. I�; At present there are about 180,000 square feet of floor space devoted to retailing in the Center. Judging that sales per square foot of floor space may rise 10% or so by 1975, an increase of some 70,000 square feet will be required to ac- commodate the projected $15 million in retail sales in 1975. Judging that floor space per non-retail employee wontt change much over this period, about 50,000 square feet of additional floor area will be required to accommodate employment growth from 550 employees to 800 employees over this period. At present there are about sixty dwelling units in the Central District; whether that number will increase, decrease, or stay the same depends less upon market considerations than upon town policy, which now excludes apartments, and upon how commercial growth is to be accommodated, that is, to what ex- tent it will supplant dwellings. It is clear that at this time there is a market demand for centrally located dwellings in Lexington, since several I ' developers have found quick tenant interest in new building proposals which were ultimately blocked by the zoning. Since there is perhaps a shortage of "upper floor" non-residential demand for as much space as might prove visually and economically desirable in the Center, this question will prove to be one of the truly critical ones in this study. " Two utilities occupy locations in the Central District. I Neither can rationally be expected to go away, in fact, a certain amount of expansion may well take place. It is as- sumed that no change in land consumption will result from yr utility company changes over the next decade. I`; Governmental activities take place at each end of the Center; the Cary Library, the newly-enlarged Post Office, andIll the town offices complex. Activity at each of these will surely grow with growth in population, but ft _is judged 1d 67- i I I' IV I y II that this will not necessitate large amounts of additional land o area. A much-discussed Public Facilities Building has just been built near Buckman Tavern. No other new public structures are anticipated in this area during this period. " i u Several clubs and similar organizations occupy space in the Center. Addition of new clubs, especially close to the II I "prime area", would be symptomatic of weakness of cou' ercial den •nd, which should make central location too costly for non- coil nercial organizations. No expansion is anticipated. Other activities, such as manufacturing and warehousing, are inappro- I priate to the Centers and are not anticipated there. To recapitulate, physical development of the Center should I be designed with the following potential as a basis: Retail Trade: Sales level up from $10 million in 1963 to $15 million is 1375; floor space up from 180,000 sq. ft. to 250,000 sq. ft., virtually all of which must have first-class location. II Other Businesses: Employment up from 550 in 1963 to 800 in 1975; floor space ®up from 110,000 s.f. in 1963 to 160,000 s.f. in 1975. I Residences: Change dependent upon policy and design choices; deii nd for easily 100 units in highly developed portion of Center, perhaps several h 'dred more in nearby areas now developed for single-family homes. Utilities, Gover. .ent, and Clubs: Some increases in ac- ; 1 tivity, but no major increase in land area occupied. 'T" CONICAL METRODO • Y 1e remainder of this report is an updating of the pre- viously published outline of the methods used in arriving at 1 1 the various estimates used herein, and is probably of technical interest only. , t I ,^ Sales Projections The question being ex Aned in these projections „ ,,s whether, given the sales impact of the Burlington Shopping Cen- ter, sales in Lexington Center could possibly be assumed to ,'' rise sufficiently to justify major changes, and if so, to what extent. 1m. -68- , There will be a fairly wellpredictable amount of pur- chases I� chases made in Burlington by residents of the Lexington Center market area. It was held in this analysis that after deducting those purchases from the total of purchases by market area resi- dents, the share of the remaining total captured by Lexington Center could remain at the 1963 level through 1975, provided that optimum improvements to the Center were made. Steps in the analysis were: , 1) Define the market area, 2) Estimate timet total purchases by its residents in 1963. 3) Estimate the share of that total sold in Lexington Center. ' 4) Estimate total purchases by residents of that same area in 1975. 5) Deduct estimated sales in Burlington to those residents. 6) Apply the 1963 percentage share of the market to the total of 1975 non-Burlington purchases. 7) Add increased sales to tourists. 8) Compare with the 1963 level. . 1 . Market Area Definition (1) There are in reality no precise lines defining market I areas but it is important in this study to define an area whose growth and change characteristics parallel those of the majority of families using the Center. A survey was made of cars parked in Lexington Center to determine their place of garaging, with the results shown in Table 1. While this suggests the presence of a fair number of out-of-town shoppers, it also shows that the vast majority are from Lexington, and that to equate the market area of Lexington Center and the Town of Lexington is a fair approximation, though for • some goods this is too large an area, and for some too small. Total Purchases by Market Area Residents (2) PurcEiases were estimated by first estimating the number of market area residents, and then estimating per cap- ita purchases. In the 1964 study, three basic methods were used to estimate how many people lived in Lexington in 1963, the base year being used. As shown in Table II • -69- .. . , .. ... . .. .. TABLE 1 , . „ 1 Parking Survey - Lexington Center In, Friday Evenings July 24, 1964 , r 11: , Place of Registration N .ber of Cars ,. iI Lexington 203 ... , 1 Contiguo - Towns, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63 Arlington 23 Lincoln 3 1 , Bedford 10 Winchester 2 . . Belmont 4 Walt/v. ', 7 Burlington B Woburn 6 .„ - I Nearby Towns, . . . . . . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Acton 4 Sudbury 1 Billerica 5 Newton Centre 3 11 I Carlisle 2 Newton,Bglds., 1 '1 Wayland 1 Watertown 3 Concord 3 1 ' . - , Distant Locations„ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2 o Andover 1 Marblehead 1 „III' II Boston 3 Marlboro 1 4: , Brookline I N.Quincy 1 1, 1 Canton 1 North. :ipton 1 Cambridge 2 Peabody I Danvers 2 Sal- fl 1 ., Gloucester 1 Somerville 4 Hi 4 dale 1 Walpole 1 Kingston 1 Winthrop 1 Lon:meadow 1 Watertown 3 Lowell 3 Worcester 1 1. 1 , La once 1 Westw. 4d 1 Lynn 1 Out of State 16 TOTAL. . . 341 Lexington % of Total = 60,0% So ce: EDA Field Survey . . .. . , ... . , . , ,.. . 0 -70- , ' TABLE 2 Population Estimates, Town of Lexington 1960 1963 1965 1970 1975 1980 U.S. Census 27,691 Planning Boards High 42,853 Low 38,561 43,996 Planning Board 1964 Est.2 35,717 40,153 44,518 GBESC3 38,000 Mass. D.P.W.4 34,000 Boston Colleges 45,800 Economic Devel. Assoc. From Bldg. Permits 30,070 From Water Services 29,410 ¢' Based on All Above 30,000 40,000 ? . Mass. Census of Popula- tion (prelim.)6 31,308 ; . 'Lexington Planning'Board, Phase 1, Summary Report, Lexington, Mass., 1963. 2Lexington Planning Board, "Population Projection" type- written mss., Sept., 1964. 3Greater Boston Economic Study Committees The Population of Boston Projected to 1980, Boston, 1962. 4Haydn, Harding and Buchanan and Charles A. •McGuire Assoc., Mass. Belt and Expressway System, Boston, 1962. 5Boston College Seminar Research Bureau, Travel in The Boston Region, Vol. IX, Boston College, Boston, 1961. 6Town Clerk's Office. • -71- r ` • 2, these various methods agree on a mid-1963 popu- lation of about 30,000, up from 27,700 in 1960. Pre- liminary figures from the 1965 Census gave further confidence in that figure. Data on sales in various locations are generally avail- able, but data on purchases by residents of given areas I can only be est n -ted. Column 1 of Table 3 is the amount of sales per resident of the Boston Standard Metropolitan Area • in 'Massachusetts in 1963. Col 0 2 is estimated from Col 0n 1, based on the known differ- ence in income between Lexington and metropolitan averages, and based on the estimated effect that in- come difference has on purchases. Multiplying purchases per person by the 30,000 persons resident in the market area gives Column 3, total purchases by Lexington rest- dents at all outlets, whether in Lexington or not. The resulting $50 million purchases estimate is 10% lower than tie total estimated independently by the Planning Board.4 The difference is s 11 and for present pur- poses, unimportant. I Lexington Center's Share (3) Sales in Lexington asahole are quite reliably es- 1 timated by the 1963 U.S. Census of Business. No sub- area figures are available, so a field survey was undertaken to estimate what percentage of outlets in each category are found in Lexington Center I0 .1' (Column 5). Applying that percentage to the total re- tail sales in Lexington produced an estia, :te of $10 million sales in Lexington Center in 1963 (Cola 6), and comparison of those sales with total purchases by Lexington residents gives the percentage shares of Column 7, which indicates that there is about one dol- lar in sales in Lexington Center for every 5 dollars spent at all outlets by Lexington residents, with the percentage varying from category to category; drug store sales in the Center equal 30% of residents' pur- chases, food sales equal 10% of residents' purchases. 1Lexington Pla' :.ing Board, 'titled mss., page 7. -72- TABLE 3 RETAIL SALES PROJECTIONS AND ESTIUATES 1 Both 1963 f € Years ! l 1975 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) e1 (7) 1 I (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 3f € .. . j 1 . 0 o Co o• i a . i +0+ m • •0O C C 0 .1 0 m m o € ' f i .0 A m a .4 u 41. 4. I F $,0 a .Fe0 L. 0 .00'- mom+ 0.1 . ma+ no O0 m.•i 000 pammo € mCa0 0 L. m .- Hh e 300 . m r+A 4 m 1 .-e mi COm Re OOm aa - m�Type of Stare $m a+3 S C M 5 0 a 0 3qa •C o O Rm+, am -+ a °' SI0A °° 0 •°Q ! m•+ am � aoaXCC6m f mus m oaa '®-.. m 4.0 m L3u ms 1a .i C XVb V3 W a@ +1 0 W m o o m a CO • 0 O++ 'e 0.4 C .40H 0C0 1.0 mh ms O0a0 f1UO0 € FF k m Om21q A v O O yAopeAe 0..O AS PA SC 5 • 111 131 E..7 fR•i m U = tR+a A. ! 0.. E. m9.7 pW p,H v U CO Al E vi Am Food 356 360 10,800 5,694 15 9001 ! 8 f ! 400 16,000 400 15,600 1,300 0 1,300 Drug 50 50 1,500 1,322 40 500i : 33 i = 60 2,400 100 2,300 800 200 1,000 Lumber, Wye 52 60 1,800 918 30 300€ i 17 1f 70 2,800 400 2,400 400 0 400 i Sub Total 458 X470 14,100 7,934 1,700 1 11 530 21,200 900 20,300 2,500 200 2,700 Gen'l Yerch. 213 250 7,500 705 70 500!€ 7 1 310 12,400 2,300 10,100 700 100 800 Apparel 100 120 3,600 1,415 90 1,300, 36 t 130 5,200 1,400 3,800 1,400 200 1,700 Furn. App,. 64 80 2,400 807 60 5001 21 € 100. 4,000 800 3,200 700 0 700 Automotive 221 250 7,500 8,746 20 1,8001 24 : ; 290 11,600 0 11,600 2,800 0 2,800 Sub Total 598 700 21,000 11,673 4,100! 3 € ! 830 33,200 4,500 28,700 5,600 300 6,000 Gas Service 76 80 2,400 1,916 0 03 € 0 ! 90 3,600 100 3,500 0 0 0 Eating, Drink • 130 130 3,900 1,571 30 500 € 13 150 6,000 200 5,800 800 300 1,100 Sub Total 206 210 6,300 3,487 5001 ; 1 ; 240 9,600 300 9,300 800 300 1,100 Other 233 240 7,200 7,794 50 3,900€ i 54 270 10,800 1,300 9,500 5,100 200 5,300 TOTAL 1,495 1,620 48,600 30,888 9,700 ' e 1,870 74,800 7,000 68,800 14,000 1,000 15,000 i Column • Column 1. Sales per person in Boston S.M.S.A. (U.S. Census) 8. Estimate by SOA based on rate of increase 1958-63. 2. Estimate by EDA based on Column 1. 9. Col. 8 x est. 1975 population (40,000). 3. Col. 2 x est. 1963 population (30,000). 10. Total est. as % of Burlington total, then distributed. 4. From U.B. Census of Business, 1963. • 11. Col. 9 - Col. 10. 5. Field survey. 12. Col. 7 x Col. 11. 6. Col. 5 x Col.4. 13. Total eat. 8 $1.00 per visitor, distributed. 7. (Col. 6/Col. 3) x 100. 14. Col. 12 + Col. 13. Total Purchases in 1975 (4) �a It is est -ted that there will be 40,000 residents u of Lexington in 1975, based on previous growth ex- ,fl perience, projections made by others, and knowledge of shifting regional trends and land availability. This figure has been corroborated by a concurrent Planning Board study,, which estimates a 1975 popula- tion of 40,1004, and by the 1965 Census results. 1 ` Per capita purchases are likely to rise along with rising incomes, though not in a simple proportionate way: food expenditures will increase less than auto rt° � expenditures, for ex. uple. Total per capita purchases were estimated to rise to 1975 at the s: ; e rate as from 1958 to 19G3, with the results of Col ns 8 and 9, Table 3, expressed in non-inflated 1963 dollars. 11 Deduct Burlington Sales (5) . 'Lexington's popula on has about 1/4 of the total purchasing power of coi ,unities adjacent to the pro- posed Burlington shopping center, but considering the broader region which the Burlington center will serve, Lexington residents are likely to contribute not more 1 , u than 10-15% of its support (see Table 4) . The exact sales level anticipated at Burlington is unkno" + , but can be estimated at about $40,000,000, based on re- leased inform tion concerning floor area and n uber of stores. To estimate that by 1975 Lexington residents will purchase $7 million a' + :rlly in Burlington is probably conservatively high. This estimate agrees fairly closely with that of the Lexington Planning Board, based on an altogether different approach. The Burlington purchases were broken down by category of store based on the store types found at the North Shore Shopping Center in Peabody, and on the sparse information released concerning this center (Col 10). Market Share in 1975 (6) Vol ern 12 of' Table 3 gives the sales which would result if Lexington Center holds its 1963 sh. e of all sales outside of Burlington. It indicates a healthy $4 million growth over 1963. 1Lexington Planning Board, "Population Projection", type- , 2written mss., September, 1964. Lexington P - • ..ing Board, untitled loss., pg. 8. -73- �� M1 Add Tourist Sales (7) The U.S. Department of the Interior believes that as many as 1 million tourists per year will visit the Minute-Man National Park when it is completed. Given the present structure and appearance of Lexington Center, this would mean little in retail sales. Given a more attractive and interesting center, it could mean a great deal. The Massachusetts Department of Commerce estimates that the average tourist spends $0.50 per day while a visitig Aiassacbusetts1. Ifthe'million tourists sts i spent 1/8th of that in Lexington, it would mean $1 million in annual sales, perhaps broken down as estimated in Column 13 of Table 4. Compare with 1933 Level (8) Column 14 of Table 3 is the final estimate of what 1975 sales could be if optimum conditions were pro- vided. Toti Biles are more than 50% higher than in 1963, and at least somewhat higher than in 1963 in every category. 'There is, however, no assurance that this will happen, only assurance that it could. OTHER COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY About a third of the commercial space in Lexington Center dl'' is used for business activities other than retailing, such as banking, insurance, real estate offices, motel, barber shops, amusements, and professional offices, among others. These ac- tivities are expanding as the population expands, in some cases more rapidly. For example in 1950 there were 60 persons em- ployed in Lexington in medical services covered by the Massa- chusetts Division of Employment Security (DES). In 1963 there L . were nearly 130. Clearly there is strong growth in Lexington in the activities which fill non-retail commercial space. Em.- ployment within Lexington covered by the DES rose from 2400 ro persons in 1950 to 3600 in 1962. Jobs in categories likely in the future to be strongly drawn to the Center rose from 230 to 290 over the same period; others which possibly might be attracted rose from 940 to 1160 (see Table 5) . 1 Massachusetts Department of Commerce, 1962 Massachusetts Vacation-Travel Survey, Boston, 1963. -?4- v. T. TABLE 4 Burlington Market Area Population Primary Zone Ui Billerica 17,067 Bedford 10,969 Burlington 12052 Woburn 31,214 Winchester 19,376 Lexington 27,700 120,100 Lexington a 23% H Secondary Zone Lowell 92,100 Chelmsford 15;100 Tewksbury 15;900 Carlisle 1;500 Wilmington 12,500 Reading 19,300 Stoneham 17000 Medford 65,000 Arlington 50;000 Belmont 28,700 ti7alth:,, 55;400 Lincoln 5;600 Concord 12,500 ° 391,400 x 1/2 i• 196,000 + 120,000 I 220,000 Effective Population Lexington 8,7% -75- II I 11 11 J • TABLE 5 Employment in Lexington Industries* 1i 11 Industry Year 1 1958 1960 1962 1963 1964 Non-Center Oriented .a Construction 573 738 460 498 453 Manufacturing 214 235 689 628 538 Transportation 51 72 103 80 92 p Wholesaling 55 62 115 92 101 Research & Development 1 9 700 554 620 Food Retailing 98 132 112 111 120 Auto Retailing Service 211 219 210 192 213 II 1203 1467 2389 2155 2137 1 - Possibly Center Oriented � ':.` Retailing Hardware, Lumber 41 39 51 51 53 Furniture 9 8 14 13 22 II Eating & Drinking 491 513 480 • 445 758 it Misc. Retail 179 189 243 215 215 ° Hotels, Motels, etc. 21 50 54 36 37 Personal Services 66 84 94 97 133 Misc. Business Services 1 9 33 33 37 Misc, Repair Services 11 10 28 23 45 h Commercial Amusements 25 32 38 40 50 geu, Medical, Health Services 61 75 120 127 129 I. 01 Misc. Services 30 46 75 80 108 935 1055 1230 1160 1587 II WEE.. Strongly CenterfOriented 31 Retailing (den'1 Merch. 66 66 72 73 54 1��� Apparel 41 47 53 65 70 1, Banking 74 92 97 94 9311 Insurance & Real Estate 45 64 59 57 68 11I , 226 269 281 289 285 ;gI Lexington Total* 2364 2791 3900 3604 4009 % Center Oriented 9.6 9,6 7.2 8.0 7.1 ,,'` % Non-Center Oriented 50.9 52.6 61.3 59.7 53.3 *Covered by Division of Employment Security Regulations 1111 Source: Massachusetts Division of Employment Security. r1; Figures are total employees in the middle two ' I weeks of November for each year. tl n' it -76- Ix.. . V IIII ,' U pll TABLE 5 (Continued) Employment Estimates 1947 1957 1959-60 1970 1975 19800u • u Town of Lexington). 3,600 3,000 9,700 4,700- To, . of Lexington2 . 3,000 5,700 Industrial only �' 128 Region') , 29,000 46,000 39,000 118,000 00 Retail only, Town of Lexington2 884 1,400 ly hoyden, Harding et al. Op. Cit. Total employment, covered and non-covered 2Seminar Research Bureau, Boston College, Travel in The Boston 3 Region, 1959-1900, Vol. II. Levin, Melvin R. and David A. Grossman, Industrial Land Needs Through 1950, GB C, Boston, 1962. -77- �� m i,l I, ICI it is estimated that about 550 persons were employed out- de of retailing in Lexington Center in 1963, and that this might easily increase to 800 by 1975 if recentrends continue !' are accommodated. ACCOMMODATING TEE MUT The projected expansion of purchasing power and employment potential in the Lexington market area only gives assurance N ° that, if attractive enough accommodations were made for it, ac- tivity in the Center could increase by about 1/2 through 1975. It gives no assurance that such will be the case, or in fact, that there might not be decline in the Center. � To house all of the commercial growth made possible by market expansion would call for over 100,000 square feet of additional floor space, and the replacement or upgrading of much existing space. The investments which this calls for will be made only where profitable, basically in "prime locations" with good visibility, high pedestrian flows, and either nearby public parking or land price low enough for parking to be pro- vided privately. The present physical configuration of Lexing- ton Center provides few opportunities for such investment, ex- cept in the replacement of existing commercial buildings. iu I�' IIS Dp pl{{ p,. yLLv V I � IIuI�U -78- r, I 1 I 11 1w 10 0 .I ZONING REV I S ION S II • l ' nI There are no ioccupied parcels in the co" +",ercially- zoned portion of Lexington Center. While more intensive use � , of land is both possible and probable, some outward expansion of the Center is a virtually inevitable concomitant of growth. � ` This report explores the reco"","+�:ended extent, direction, and � " type of such growth. '"Ili, u' Analyses of activity levels in Lexington have indicated ' a reasonable expectation of demand for an additional 120,000 square feet of co" a"ercial floor space above the 1964 level in the Center by 1975, the bulk of the growth in one-story build- ings (see "1975 Activity Levels!'') . This amount of growth was used as the basis for exploration of a n ""ber of design alterna-' �,I tives for the Center, the very most compact of which required co", tercial expansion onto some nine acres of land now resi- ro dentially zoned, the most expansive of which con ercial.ly oc- ^ nlo cupied some twelve acres of residentially zoned land. � . V Those design alternatives made clear that only with care- 0: ful design . id use of multi-level structures for both business "11.y and parking could the p .jected 1975 level of 410,000 square lor;or, feet of co""+ ercial floor space be acro+ "J:odated without un- 0. desirable intrusion into iiformly residential districts; and should the railroad continue to disrupt development north of :I1 Massachusetts Avenue, even greater efforts would be required to acco,+s+;odate that much growth without serious co. .ercial/ 4 residential conflict. ', There is, however, nothing obligatory about providing `1 ;, for 410,000 square feet of space. Presently planned co,"uer- cial struct es will result in expansion from 290,000 square ! feet of cou»ercial floor space in the Center to about 340,000 square feet. How much space there will be at any point in time in addition to the 340,000 square feet not only con- ditions public actions on zoning, parking, and traffic control, but also is conditioned by those actions. With no changes in c " zoning or public parking areas, very little net growth above � the 340,000 square foot level can be or need be expected. The III ' amo it of development between the nearly certain minim "k. of I , 340,000 square feet and the projected possible level of 410,000 11F -79- R Illy S 1 rRr f 1 square feet by 1975 is a matter of public policy choices; ,'' I there is at this writing the possibility that public inaction might even result in less than the 340,000 square foot level 3 being attained. ,e 1The 1964 reconnaissance study prepared for the Lexington Chamber of Commerce and leading to this effort, explored l alternative directions for commercial development at the com- munity-wide scale, contrasting policies of no change, develop- ment on arterials, and development in the Center. By con- centrating much of the commercial growth supported by Lexing- I ton's population and income growth in the Center, rather than € encouraging it to occur in outlying areas or outside of Lexing- ton, shoppers' 'one-trip" convenience is well served, as is community appearance, and the minimization of residential- commercial activity conflicts. For these reasons, growth in 1 the Center was advocated, and the present study recommended. For those same reasons, zoning to permit commercial growth beyond 340,000 square feet is justified, but not growth to the point that public costs or neighborhood interferences be- come excessive. For these reasons, about 360,000 square feet of commercial space is being used as a guideline for changes ;�, in zoning, parking, and circulation. The guideline means a third more trips destined for the 10 Center. This means an increase by one third in the volume of ; , ` I demand for parking. Exploration of a variety of physical con- figurations reveals that this means an increase by ten acres in the amount of land which should be commercially zoned. Rezoninginsuring provision of the parking, and making the 1 circulation improvements required to handle the resultant tra - fic are the primary public means by which this growth can be I attracted and directed. DIRECTION OF COMMERCIAL EXPANSION (See page 7) ; The general direction for commercial expansion in Lexington i , Center over the next decade is quite clear. Public or insti- tutional development sharply limit possible east-west expansion along Massachusetts Avenue to a relatively small increment in the vicinity of Wallis Court. To the north, the topography of Meriam Hill provides a natural stop, as does the present un- certainty over the future use of the railroad right-of-way. The next decade is likely to bring decisive transportation changes, resulting in either the confirmation of the use of the right-of-way for transport use, or its release for develop- ment. In either case, more intensive development of land below Oakland Street will be possible, but the shape of such develop- ment very much depends upon the railroad future, so prudence suggests no heavy investment in that area, nearly all publicly owned, until the railroad question has been resolved. iI -60- d �1^ Expansion to the south is physically possible, generally anticipated, and if carefully guided, a desirable means of strengthening the Center. Co r+nercial growth in that direction need not invade areas now strictly used for single..f. 'ily residences. Two large and many smaller professional office ff structures are already located in the residentially-zoned area south of the present co ++ercial Center, along with a variety of other non-residential activities. Zoning change in this case can follow, rather than precede, such initial land-use change. Y7alth- Street, Lexington Center's "second" co++++ercial street, visually extends the Center beyond the co«+.ercially- zoned area because of the location on it of several -so, y non-residential structures. ther co++.ercialization of the area between those structures and the limits of the present co++ .ercial zone could improve a presently am „-rd visual and f fictional arrangement. This for. the rationale for estab- lishment of district limits in that vicinity, along with the potential "buffer" provided by a publicly-owned easement crossing Massachusetts Avenue. Muzzey Street is generally lined with residential struc- tures now grad =lly being converted to con++ercial use, such that further co., ercialization would represent no sharp change. Raymond Street has nearly half its •orthern frontage occupied by professional offices; again, further co .ercial development �kd will bring change of degree, not kind. Clarke Street, resi- dentially zoned, hasn't a single residence fronting on it north of Forest Street; the limited changes possible there given more permissive zoning are unlikely to cause any type of dis- ruption. �, On the other hand, Forest Street, despite several non- residential fronting activities and a fair sh- °e of through traffic, has a handsomely consistent residential character de- serving of continued zoning protection. Vinebrook Road is solidly residential and should remain so, as is the case with everything near the Center west of Clarke Street. d° The municipal parking lot north of Massachusetts Avenue is really an adj ..ct of the co++.ercial center, so reasonably a �� should be co++ Rercially zoned, even though this will result in no change in the way the ea is used. This ' suld, however, remove the present • easonable twenty-foot zoning "buffer" south of the railroad,, required since properties there abut a residential zone. The shape of development in the vicinity of Wallis Court off Massachusetts Avenue is a critical issue. The present de- velopment pattern in that vicinity, whether judged successful 4 �o -81- �6: or not, is unlikely to persist indefinitely, so the question of change must be met. The present commercial zone termina- tion one lot east of Wallis Court arbitrarily interrupts a row of four similar properties, while one lot further east a major spatial, topographic, and use discontinuity exists, pro- viding a better opportunity for zone change. Extending the commercial district to that point would provide a large enough area between Wallis Court and the end of the commercial dis- trict to make possible a major structure able to provide the visual termination the commercial district needs at that point. DISTRICT TYPES The Lexington Zoning Bylaw makes different requirements for yard space, allowed uses, and required private parking in each of the several commercial district types. All com- mercial zoning in the Center today is of the C-2 type, one of the most permissive in range of allowed uses, the least re- stridtive spatially, and one requiring no private off-street parking. The nature of some areas recommended for commercial zoning are such that greater spatial and use restrictions than those of the C-2 district would be reasonable, and off -street parking, by precedent and by function, should be a private rather than public function. It is therefore recommended that such areas be rezoned C-1, and that the provisions of the C-I district be modified as they apply to the Center. The most significant departure suggested from either the present C-1 or C-2 provisions for these areas is in off-street parking requirements. The very heart of the Center has a pedestrian's scale, which every effort is being made to pre- serve and enhance. Shoppers drive to the Center, park once, and can on foot range throughout the area, visiting many des- tinations without relocating their cars. Multiple trips from a single parking space make that parking space of general benefit, rather than a benefit assignable to the most proximate property. This is the ultimate rationale of public parking provision. On the other hand, parking at the professional office building on Waltham Street serves that building alone, not just because the parking is private, but also because develop- ment there is not now and is unlikely ever to be compact enough to give it a pedestrian's scale. Development at Wallis Court, i , or south of Vinebrook Road and the rest of the loop system, will be the object of specially-oriented trips. When finished ; 1; shopping at Wallis Court, customers can be expected to drive, not walk, to their next Center destination, making parking at . Wallis Court appropriately a private function, not a public one. '�i -82- 11 A IL 1 Private off-street parking tends to be wasteful, as the chaos between Clarke Street and Muzzey Street attests, In w:', the heart of the Center, this inevitable wastefulness of pri- vate parking lots would exact an intolerable cost in terms of i,` lost compaction and convenience, where all space counts heavily since shoppers are moving on foot. In the more outlying areas, however, a little efficiency loss isn't serious. Land is worth less, and people are moving about in cars. In the long run, 11 ` ' perhaps a design review process for private parking areas can minimize waste by coordinating lot design. 1 ; The Parking Needs study examined how much off-street i1 parking is "enough", and the exploration of alternative de- sign schemes further developed the spatial implications of the overall ratios. Lexington's present C-1 zoning requires 10 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of co i r ercial floor space, which is what most highway-oriented coitiercial centers pro-• vide. Amounts presently provided by offices and others in iI the area proposed for rezoning range up to 8 spaces/1,000 s.f. , I, reflecting dependence upon public transport and pedestrian traffic for some users, and on-street spaces for some others. A requirement of 5 spaces/1,000 s.f. as currently proposed by the Planning Bo d for C-N districts elsewhere would suffice, when added to on-street p. king, to assure adequacy without turning the area into a vast parking lot, and without requiring of future development parking ratios in excess of those volun- tarily provided in the past. A requirement of 6 spaces/1,000 square feet would relieve ultimate dependence on curb parking, and might therefore be preferable. The areas proposed for rezoning are characterized today by detached structures surrounded by "all yards, yet with structures visually enclosing the street. Where pedestrian ,i , ` proximity isn't important, this is an excellent arrangement; its retention is advocated. The C-i district now requires 20 foot front yard. = d rear yard, both reasonable for the area to be rezoned (C-2 requires no front yard). In addition, a iglu" 10-foot sideyard should be required to preserve the present pattern and assure rear access, light, and air. Building heights in the C--1 district are limited to 2i floors or 40 feet (C-2 permits three stories), entirely reasonable for the o areas in question. I The C-i district prohibits liquor stores, coir i ercial ; amusements, billboards, and 1nber and fuel sales, all per- 1 I mitted (in some cases on Special Permit) in the C-2 district. ° r The C-1 areas proposed around the Center serve as "transition J districts", and as such shouldn't contain such activities; the present regulations need no revision in this respect. i ill y i I -83- 111 ^ m 1 Apartments are prohibited in both the C-.], and C-2 dis- tricts. Wherever permitted, apartments should have privately provided off-street parking, and should either have private open space or direct access to public open space. In the C-2 district, economics rules out provision of apartments meeting these criteria, so zoning for them is un- necessary. In the C-1 district as proposed, apartments might be economically feasible and, if they provided their own parking and open space, could prove an asset to the Center. They would help maintain some "life" when stores are closed, supply customers within walking distance, and a housing choice not now available in Lexington, and rarely available in sub- urban Boston. To the extent that apartments are actually developed around the Center, they would divert space from commercial use, and reduce the compaction of the Center, but probably not to a serious extent. They would blur the transition be- tween the commercial Center and abutting residential areas; an assist in achieving the visual form sought for the Center. One provision not found in the current Lexington Zoning Bylaw would be desirable in both the Center's C-1 and C-2 dis- tricts. Parking should be prohibited within twenty feet • of the street line. This has both safety and esthetic justi- • fication, and is voluntarily observed by all private interests in the Center today. Such zoning would simply insure con- tinuation of the present pattern, and require the municipality to be as respectful of pedestrian safety and amenities as are private developers. TIMING Op ZONING CHANGE Zoning change at Wallis Court has urgency to insure that it precedes any major new investment in the area. Zoning change north of the railroad is minor, but that minor change will be of most benefit if quickly enacted. • Between Clarke and Muzzey Streets, zoning is tied to mu- nicipal action on parking. If land is to be acquired for municipal parking, such acquisition should precede zoning change. If such acquisition is rejected, a zoning change of the entire area to C-1 (with off-street parking requirements) should be immediately enacted, to prevent private building from usurping space needed for parking. Below Raymond Street, zoning change has little urgency, ( • since there is little present pressure for physical change there. All areas not mentioned above fail into an "inter- mediate urgency" category: no immediate necessity for change, but also no reason to delay. -84- TABLE -I LEXINGTON 0' ER ZONING COMPARISONS Planning Item re -1 . -1 Req.** Present C-2 Req. Off-street 10 e e 1000 s.f. s.f. Front yard ft. None Rear a . 1 Side yard None 20 ft. 10 e t Building height 2i storiesstories r *Proposed for neighborhood shopping areas. **Proposed g of the Center, _ e .:. a e _ =. ` •. I SUGGESTED ZONING AMENDMENTS 1.) Revise SECTION 5. PERMITTED BUILDINGS AND USES, Para- 4 graph (c) C 1 Districts, by adding subparagraph 6d to read as follows: "d. Apartments, subject to the conditions of Section 5(g) A 1 Districts, sub-paragraph 1." 2.) Revise SECTION 8. AREA, FRONTAGE AND YARD REQUIREMENTS, paragraph (b) C 1 Districts, to read as follows: "l. In C 1 districts there shall be provided: a. For each permitted principal building and for each accessory building, other than those permitted in A.l, R 1 or R 2 districts: (1) A front yard of not less than 20 feet in depth on each street on which the lot abuts, within which there shall be no parking areas. (2) A side yard of 10 feet, or, if a boundary of the lot abuts on land in an R 1 or R 2 dis- trict, a side yard adjoining such boundary of not less than 20 feet in width, which may be used for parking area if otherwise lawful. (3) A rear yard of not less than 20 feet in depth, which may be used for parking area if other- vise lawful. b. For each permitted principal and accessory building, other than principal buildings permitted in an R 1 or R 2 district, a parking area on the lot contain- ing not less than six parking spaces, as hereinafter defined, for each 1000 square feet or fraction there- of of floor area in said buildings. As used herein the term "parking space" shall mean an area avail- able for parking one motor vehicle and having a width of not less than 9 feet and an area of not less than 180 square feet, exclusive of passageways and driveways appurtenant thereto, and with free and unimpeded access to a street over unobstructed „. passageways or driveways. Loading areas shall not be considered to be part of the parking area. The term "floor area", as used herein, shall mean the aggregate horizontal area in square feet of floors within the walls enclosing the building, exclusive of cellar or basement areas used only for storage or services incidental to the operation or maintenance of the building. -86- c. For each principal building permitted in R 1, R 2, ,� or A 1 districts, the same lot area and frontage, . and for each such building and accessory building the s ue front, side and rear y: ds as would be re- quired if the lot were situated in an R 1, R 2, or A 1 district. • 3.) Revise SECTION 8. AREA, FRONTAGE AND YARD REQUIREMENTS, .. w^^d paragraph (c) C 2 Districts, by adding subparagraph` 1(c) Mo to read as follows: "c. Na parking "areas shall be located within 20 feet of the street line." • I 11 • ; lr -87- 1 ,cri ci, i '...-------______-------\25 C) a ao 00 n r Ido aTReerta • IAA 1ri C aG• y P 'ic) t`- ( DBa'BLe "s\��\r\\ \� BYPASS - '_ 4" 4-'1 % .410:-•, . , -,.. il''•". C \\\,..,,,,,..,\\ ....._. ................ .% ".„.„.:14..._,A:4.,„...,..,„1„.,.„... •. „Av....,,..:: .::....... ..::. .:•* .....,.:0 .,::,....4. ,...K:„.... , e i. .... _ . _. •• . , .,.. ;,..„ .0.p.,,,..„...„...,.4.1.4...: „..3:1„m..:•::5„._„„..:t.... 4 MAB . ,• BACNUSCTTS \.k,• •, 4'.0.0A '• X . \7 ._ ;., ,_ it -. • \ \ � �\aBRao,�V 4 ROA® z N'N's•-----j " : • -•-i ._,� .Y RAYMOND ST. \.: �. $ fil X iNkN O \ N Rear .X5: 9 \ _ ; ' 1.985 DEVELOPMENT , COMMERCIAL LEXINGTON CENTER STUDIESni SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OMEN SPACE gym® o .0? 2.2 we '°° ..:o. BEDNARSK,•FALCONER•STEIN,ARCHITECTS, GREENFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS scaGc IN Icn P -3-- . r G A' IN tl, TRAFFIC NEEDS (11, ,w The circulation system in and around Lexington Center must service three traffic demands: Vii`` a) Through movements of, vehicles from outside the Center destined for other points outside the Center. In the 1956 traffic study conducted by the League of Women Voters and the Lexington Planning Board, this was found to comprise 88% of I" all traffic in the Center. With Worthen Road diverting some through traffic, the proportion of through traffic in 1965 is likely to be a little lower, but probably still in excess of 80% on a workday. b) Movements of vehicles between a point outside the Center and a point within it. In 1956, these trips comprised nearly 12% of the total traffic movements. c) Movements of vehicles from within the Center to an- other point within the Center. Such moves were rare in 1956, a little more frequent toda and likelyto 9. y, grow substantially as and if the Center grows and disperses its parking areas. The circulation system does a reasonably good job of handling these demands most of the time today, but any event ;' � which reduces capacity or increases traffic peaks over their I normal levels produces congestion which is a portent of what would be the future normal condition unless improvements are made. In the nine years since the last traffic study of Lexing- ton Center was made, many conditions have changed. The popu- lation has grown nearly 50%, auto usage even more. Massive lj growth in employment north and west of Lexington Center has occurred, shifting the pattern of job to home trips. The Center itself has added commercial activity, but even more p commercial growth has occurred to the north and west. Public transportation usage has declined. 1 The only relieving factors have been the construction of Worthen Road from Bedford Street to Waltham Street and the -88- ) :41 t ok BURLINGTON 'I EtINPINNS 041.0 SHOPPING CENTER , , • 4° V / . toil, /1 El OP 1 7 V' 111 4 ...., k ..A q...0 , ,:•5_.5 N ' 4.q 1 1 •.A.,,, *04% Cit, hp W4 r- Oa A41 '',,, .9 Ez, # /;)% . C 7 11 II, RESEARCH c , fi4 LAB ORATOR I II tA 6,,,.'" D•• 14t,•'.. TEm,,,.-..11.3.AcliAL.,.., ..,,.............. KA' m MASS 411161.14110H4azst A .... „, ,,,,....,::, .,...... .... ../............,:......„ ,,,„!,: ra "f t --• waSU ES t5iffrEr.."" r6„ytt.........:;:;,, , .....• \t+, I II t. i. 4, / N/ a "m, 0 817 wre ''' a‘l' ..., 4.1 _ ,1/4__, Amet,t \ — i \ly .-._)r Ok. ...* itv ...% i#b b is,4111 ...1° „4 tv v vr7P. 4000) 'v. ...... /ail HourE Ilik,111P4 el?. 1 /000t 'NIIIM1111111, a• itt? 0 1 II 1 It's\ /0411 *I , at44 r '444f' Ca.. 0Cri -ND Illf G , \".... C0'\ Ji v? 411, V G - lio N , EGIONAL PATTERN 0 xING 'TON CENTER STUDIES 1 ,1 2000 0 2000 4000 1 10 NOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES* INC., BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS — — SCALE IN FEET NARSKI.FALCONER.STEIN, ARCHITECTS GREENFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS i 0 i AA improvement of some alternative routes such as Concord Avenue, of minor benefit to the Center. The result has been massive increase in the traffic to be handled) as well as shifts in fir' its relative distribution. '<<'i TABLE 1. PEAK EVENING TRAFFIC 1''' Vehicles per Hour % Inc. 1956* 1965** 1956-1965 e. or. ' . e ?ianu eman Eastbound 440 720 60 Westbound 590 650 10 Total 1030 1370 30 I. V, Massachusetts Ave. Waltham Street Eastbound 600 1000 70 Westbound 740 820 10 Total 1340 1820 40 Waltham Street Northbound 250 330 30 IA Southbound 180 330 80 Total 430 660 50 Overall 2800 3850 40 *Source: Estimated from 1956 Traffic Study. **Source: EDA field survey and estimate. fl ui . b The trend illustrated by these comparisons is corroborated by other data as well as by general experience. For example, data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Works traffic '�e , counts indicate a growth in daily average traffic on Waltham Street from 5700 vehicles in 1956 to 8000 vehicles per day in 1963; on Bedford Street from 11,500 vehicles in 1956 to 14,000 vehicles in 1963; on Massachusetts Avenue from 10,600 vehicles per day in 1956 to 17,000 in 1963, while Lexington D.P.W. figures indicate subsequent growth to over 19,000 vehicles per day through the Center. The developmental changes mentioned earlier are clearly " I reflected in the pattern of traffic change. For example, whereas in 1956 the evening peak-hour traffic eastbound , ' ., o i 1 --89- 1 oil ,s+ -17 1. a vr. \a' ..). & cce /... 63 0 Iiiifilr 42241. 11 e C go- c) CD )1100, MASSACHUSETTS 1112D4 lik 411) co AVENUE A CLARKE digle te 0 (1:1 0 -• one _ STREET (3 , 98 103 C5* L.......-110 MERI AM STREET jdmh 0 inir Fil.- Arik IL V.IW W la WALTHAM SIRE E T Ch) - TR AF F C VOLUMES MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE MASS. AVE AT WALTHAM ST TUESDAY-NOV. 2965 TUESDAY-NOV, 2,1965 4115 TO 435 RM. TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4140 TO 500RM. APPARENT TWO WAY MASS. AVE, AT BEDFORD ST APPARENT TWO WAY VOLUME,: VOLUME,1,629 VPH. COUNTS BY E.D.A. STAFF 1.620 V.PH. COUNTS BY E.U.A. STAFF _ _ . 4 , towards Boston exceeded that westbound towards Route 128, today the relative volumes are reversed. Waltham Street vol- ume southbound has grown despite Worthen Road, reflecting the pattern of access to parking lots in the Center and growth in activity in Waltham. Continuation of past growth will require improvements to satisfy the traffic demands of the typical day, not just the extraordinary one as at present. The following sections ex- amine the elements involvedn i estimation of traffic needs to be serviced, while later reports cover design suggestions for servicing those needs. POPULATION GROWTH The Lexington Center study is keyed to a growth of Lexing- ton from 31,000 persons today to 40,000 persons in 1975. If growth is slower or faster than that, then all of the develop- mental suggestions of the study will be valid sooner or later than projected. The number of households has been projected by the Planning Board to increase at a slightly lower rate than the population, but the average auto ownership per house- hold will increase so that the amount of automobile usage will increase at a rate in excess of the rate of population growth, or by more than 1/3 over the decade. Forecasting ten-year population growth by subarea re- quires more detailed examination than possible here, but it , ,!I can be said that the areas most likely to receive new growth are those outside of the area primarily serviced for through trips by the radial road system converging on the Center, so population growth will have an impact of less than 1/3 on traf- fic through the Center. SHIFTING THROUGH TRIP DESTINATIONS Within Lexington, the greatest potential for employment growth probably lies in land served by Bedford Street. Look- ing at the region more generally, it is clear that growth in job opportunities to the north and west of Lexington will ex- ceed that to the south and east, further aggravating the exist- ent "imbalance" of commuting trips on Massachusetts Avenue and on Bedford Street. Opening of a new shopping center in Burlington will shift trip patterns somewhat, but will have little effect on the peak-hour problem. Pew persons will find a route through s`,; Lexington Center the most convenient way to get to Burlington, though many may combine trips to the two centers. -90- (H , 11 Other social trips also are likely to increasingly find I their destination on the far side of Lexington. Consistently, these trip destination shifts will tend to increase evening p ; peak traffic heated through the Center away from the ; tnuteman ,I more than the reverse. CENTER DESTINATIONS In the next several years, anticipated new buildings and enlargement of parking facilities will bring more trip desti- nations in the Center to parking are. - north of Massachusetts I Avenue, with space growth south of the Avenue being more gradual. I0i No matter how strong efforts to the contrary are taken, growth of the Center will result in greater dispersion of stores and parking, so that more frequently the shopper will relocate his vehicle within the Center at least once while shopping, adding significantly to traffic demands. Projections of activity levels for the Center indicate ay , potential for a 50% increase in shopping and employment; this in turn suggests a 50% increase in trips destined there. The P actual design for the Center is being made for a slightly more modest growth, so the 50% increase in Center-destined trips '. c. • be taken as a maxim "' 1. ALTERNATE ROUTES '�, Worthen Road, even in its incomplete state, diverts a . .jor toe ,,t of traffic from the Center. It now carries in excess of 500 vehicles per hour during the evening r h period, many of which vehicles would otherwise be added to the nearly �I 2000 squeezing through Massachusetts Avenue. Completion of ,t Worthen Road to Route 2 will greatly increase its usefulness to co,+uters, and will relieve a major flow of traffic from the C- 't- Improvement of Route 2 will also aid the Center. Many trips, now slightly faster by -ing Massachusetts Avenue will, I after the completion of Route 2 improvements, be faster on that road. For example, from the Route 3 "dead-end" at Route u: 128 to the Arlington line takes about as long through Lexington T Center as it does via Route 2 and Route 123, and a considerable n ,+ber of co n t uters use the Center route. Completion of Route 3 to the east would, of co se, divert that traffic, but even 1 �' Route 2 improvements alone will do so. I , Emerson Road is no longer thought ht of as a major bypass road, but to a limited extent, whencompleted, will relieve ° some persons of having to use the Center as a means of access elsewhere. , -91- N 1 I G CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS The Center need serve no more traffic than can reach it; that amount is constrained by the roads feeding the Center, re particularly those to the north. Boston Regional Planning Project data indicates that in 1963, Bedford Street at peak hours was carrying 90% of its practical capacity (its capacity without congestion). Unless it and its intersections are im- proved, Bedford Street is likely to deliver only 10% more traffic to the Center at peak hours than it does now, since volumes increased more than that amount imply congestion which is likely to influence traffic to use other routes. Similarly, Massachusetts Avenue west of the Center carries at peak hours 80% of its practical capacity, Waltham Street and Woburn Street 70% of their capacities, Massachusetts Avenue east of the Center er t 60% of its capacity. Overall, this allows for anncrea ein i s traffic into the Center of not more than about 1/5 over present volumes. PUBLIC TRANSPORT The Boston and Maine Railroad relieves a minor part of the evening west-bound traffic load by carrying a few dozen commuters to Lexington, North Lexington, and Bedford. Only a radical change in operations could render it a significant help in relieving traffic, and then only given careful atten- tion to station location and access. Virtually all users of any possible future rapid transit will use their auto to get to the line. This could add to rather than relieve Center traffic if a major station were lo- :R,4 cated there. If, on the other hand, stations were located out- side of the Center where provision of access and parking can more readily be handled without conflict, each passenger gained would represent an easing of Center traffic. Busses using local streets to collect passengers and ex- pressways to move to destinations are talked of and perhaps more likely for Lexington than rail transit. Local busses offer a critically important service, one which must be ac- commodated with stops, but not one likely to have major impact in reduction of traffic flow. TOURISM Visitors to the Minuteman National Park are expected to triple to 1,000,000 000peryear by1975. If the redesign of � : g -92- lo 'ji¢ Lexington Center is successful, this means more than tripling 1 tourist trips to the Center. This is a not insignificant i vol ..e of traffic which must be accounted for in the design of circulation around the Green. Fortunately, peak visitor flows do not coincide with peak co, .uting or shopping flows; a.,tirculation system which serves peak couiuting demands will, in its major parts, satisfy off-peak tourist demands as well. SAT ' I'AY Saturday is market day in suburbia, and presents a traf- fic situation altogether different from Monday-Friday. Peak flows are in the mid-day, are largely Center-destined, and, are the Center's co' axercial bread and butter. II' Saturday congestion is comparable to evening peak conges- tion in effect, but not in cause. On Saturday, there are far more turning movements onto side streets to reach off-street . parking, more curb parking turnover, more '"irrationality" of ti, 1 double-parking to pick up packages, pedestrian crossings, etc. Since traffic volumes don't reach weekday peaks, the physical system which serves the weekday adequately will also serve Saturday adequately if the access to parking can be arranged in a way which min' flizes turns, especially left turns, off y ', and onto Massachusetts Avenue through its central portion. �y THE RESULTANT PATTERN 1 Item Changes '65-'75 Resultant traffic effect Population 30% increase 1/3 increase overall, less in Center o Employment Shift N-Ti Increase "imbalance" Shopping Burlington Center Small traffic increase I' in Center Other trips Shift N•.VI Increase "imbalance"' Center dentin. Disperse, grow 50% Increase intra-Center traffic ul � Alternate routes Complete Worthen Rd. Lighten Bedford_, .ss. Ave. Improve Route 2 Lighten Bedford-Mass. Ave. ; Cap. constraints Ass .e none Limit traffic inc. to 1/5 Public transport 7 ? Iy1 1 -93- ,w *.I a" 1 All of these shifting factors taken together suggest that roads leading into the Center are likely by 1975 to be used to nearly their practical capacity at peak hours, but I�? not over that, with a general increase of nearly 1/5 in the traffic to be handled by the Center, or less than the increase population growth alone would simply suggest (from 1956 to I. 1965 traffic peaks in the Center have similarly grown less than has the population) . Because of the use of alternate routes for through traffic, a larger share of traffic in the l Center will be Center-destined, and a larger share of it will p` be traffic moving within the Center. The tendency for the evening peak to be heaviest east- bound will be increased, while greater use of the Center's roads for shopping and tourist activity and (relatively) less use for commuting implies daytime volumes more nearly equalling peak volumes. While-the mid-afternoon volume reaches 2/3rds 1 the evening peak now, by 1975 it may reach 3/4ths of the peak, giving fuller urgency to road adequacy, since inadequacy will affect more than just a few hours. The figures o2 Table 2 indicate projected volumes to be satisfied on the major road network in the Center. it in- dicates volumes as they would be handled by the existing con- figuration; bypass routes within the Center could redistribute 'Id some of this, but in so doing,, would make the Center easier to travel and more attractive to through traffic, thereby per.- ;,;, haps inducing more traffic, wiping out some but not all of the gain. ISI 11 u!' 1 I it i„ill -94- �y h 11, 4'. TABLE T-2 h III TRAFFIC GROWTH, 1965-75 1 i ICLES IN AVERAGE DAY PEAK HOUR 1,, ', 1965 1975 % Increase 1 . M u Bedford St. @ Minuteman Gr Eastbound 720 900 25 GI Westbound 650 720 10 M Total 1370 1620 18 04 1,0 Massachusetts Ave. © , Minuteman 40 Eastbound 300 350 15 "• Westbound 220 240 10 Total 520 590 13 7p.Y V r� Massachusetts Ave. @ Walth. t St. ,, i Eastbound 1000 1250 25 Westbound 820 900 100p; Total 1820 2150 ' 28 ,- i Waith. i Street 0; Northbound 330 400 20 . Southbound ' 330 400 20 w Total 660 800 201. OVERALL 4370 5160 19 So ce: EDA survey and projection -95- 01l ACCIDENTS The circulation system should not only carry traffic flows without congestion, but also should do so with a reasonable de- gree of safety. The Traffic Accident map graphically suggests 11 , locations where the system in the Center is failing in that latter respect today. Relatively few of the accidents involve injury, and fa- talities are extremely rare, since traffic moves slowly, if not well. It is interesting to note that a bypass such as Worthen Road is an ineffective accident prevention device. By creating new intersection conflicts, such a road at best relocates accidents, but doesn't reduce them, Comparison with similar maps for previous years suggests that this year's pattern is fairly representative, except at the Waltham Street-Massachusetts Avenue intersection, where Iii abnormally few accidents have occurred this year. The Harrington Road-Bedford Street intersection has more accidents than any other in or near the Center (with the ex- ception most years of the Waltham St. corner and its traffic , back-up) . Stop signs recently erected didntt immediately stop accidents, but should reduce the number. The intersection at the Minuteman also accounts for many rumpled fenders as well as frayed nerves, but few injuries, At Grant Street, Post. Office traffic poses a problem. w° Most of the scattered accidents through the Center on Massachusetts Avenue are rear-end collisions triggered by the lights at Waltham Street. This, the larger accident map of Lexington (not reproduced here), and the experience of other communities attest that traffic signals are useful devices to increase intersection capacities, but in general cause as many accidents as .they prevent. With over 20% more traffic anticipated in the Center, some increase in accidents must be expected, but the physical de- sign of the Center should relieve existing problems wherever possible, and in any event not aggravate them. 11 f;�rol ,11 -96.. '° \ . 0..--- gs,.... .. • \\ --4.........,,, (:::•...„, ,,,,, .,. ,, ! il • Ile ela <7,:\,... . „ ,,, / z , , , , .- f ..: ,,., .., //, A .. .41111111111111111'' *'. \\II' s �+e 4/ .. „ . i/ _ , ,ice r _. .. 4,4 - r 6161® 1110.00. . g ,g r , t -,.a t MS .. re!Noma b ' ,.. ■ s._.SareAww.r..nua.erz.eewnrr SAT #: . h f.w. -•..1.01061 Simeo..KT0ssst ri.a .: 0 6100 •SIMS.RPBUIT ■ F \ 0 --,......T'T"T"..TTT--•--....„2+ .� t . LEXINGTON CENTER .Mr.P. .00 M .MA W M o�R ; TRAFFIC COUNT Mass. Aveti,Hunt Block Mass. Ave, at between Waltham St. Central Block and Depot Square 9/28 to 9/29/65 9/29 to 9/30/65 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM 526 700* 11 to 12 1200 1109 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM 1287 1113 1 to 2 1220 1000 (Approx.) 2 to 3 1193 1027 3 to 4 1538) 1289) 4 to 5 1770)Peak 1505)Peak 5 to 6 1571) 1470) 6 to 7 1145 1023 7 to 8 1153 1060 8 to 9 863 823 9 to 10 599 578 10 to 11 432 471 11 to 12 306 300 12:00 AM to 1: 00 AM 329 138 1 to 2 56 50 2 to 3 8 21 3 to 4 16 14 4 to 5 23 21 . 5 to 6 52 55 6 to 7 362 390 7 to 81304)peak 1270)Peak 8 to 9 3.512) 1406) 9 to 10 1187 1045 TOTAL 19,452 17,878 • *Actual hours; 10:15 AM to 11:00 AM. Source: Lexington Dept. of Public Works -97- CIRCULATION PLAN At most times of the day and at all times on many days, traffic moves to and through Lexington Center without undue delay or hazard. On some days, however, serious congestion occ s, and those days are becoming more frequent. With 20% more traffic in the Center anticipated by 1975 (see "Traffic Needs" study) improvements must be made if Lexington Center's predominant image isn't to become that of an intolerable traf- fic j:«. In!uediate improvement in the traffic-handling capacity of Massachusetts Avenue and later provision of a loop-road dis- tributor are the major efforts reconuended for handling traffic needs in Le.:ington Center over the next ten years. More radical alternatives, such as complete diversion of traf- fic from tssachusetts Avenue, were examined and discarded after having been found either unworkable or in violation of one of the basic design objectives for the Center plan as a whole; in any event, they are unnecess y for at least the ten years covered by this plan. The loop road is intended to facilitate movement into and between off-street parking areas with minim__n use of Massachusetts Avenue by such traffic. Generally, cars bound for the Center would turn off Massachusetts Avenue before getting deep into the Center and proceed via some portion of the loop system in reaching a parking area. Through traffic would not be expected to make much use of the loop with its n iaerous t .-., but would be benefitted by removal of some of the vol ie through the Center, and by relocation of conflicting t ning movements. Still, improvements e required for Massachusetts Avenue itself as the primary means of carrying traffic through the Center. DIVERSIONS (See page 9) In the long r , even with the new wider Massachusetts Avenue right-of-way and the loop system, it may become neces- sary to divert some of the 85% of traffic in the Center which -98- is just passing through. Some diversion is possible with a route linking Massachusetts Avenue at the Green/and Woburn Street at Massachusetts Avenue via Harrington Street, a new right-of-way to Meriam St., Oakland St., a new right-of-way to Grant St., Sherman St., and Fletcher Avenue. Peak hour volumes travelling between Massachusetts Avenue at the Green and Woburn Street are less than 25% of the Massachusetts Avenue volume at the Green*, or about 150 vehicles in the peak hour at the projected 1975 volume. Most of those vehicles would use the diversion, as would some of the 200 or so vehicles going straight through on Massachusetts Avenue, for a total diversion of about 200 vehicles in the peak hour (when Massachusetts Avenue through the Center would otherwise handle about 2200 vehicles) . This 10% improvement isn't negligible, but might be considered less valuable than the costs, property disruptions and required changes around the Green would warrant. A more dramatic diversion is possible by bending the flow of Bedford Street over to much that same route described above. This involves far larger cost and disruption (although avoid- ing historic areas) but also brings larger benefit. Nearly all traffic moving between Bedford Street and Massachusetts Avenue east of the Center would use this route, diverting nearly 1000 vehicles in the projected 1975 peak hour, well over 40% of the total otherwise to be handled on Massachusetts Avenue through the Center. Such a sweeping change would cost more than Lexington alone is likely to be willing to pay. Even given financial support to make this route feasible, some might believe this to involve non-fiscal costs exceeding benefits, so the di- version cannot be assumed as an element in handling problems within the time horizon of this study, 1975. The design of Massachusetts Avenue and the loop system is therefore based on the following considerations: 1) The traffic projections of the Traffic Needs Study, which assume no diversion, should be used for design of Massa- chusetts Avenue and the loop road system to 1975. *1956 Traffic Study, following pg. 21. -99- 2) Most highway authorities informally expect a major federal-aid program for secondary roads such as Routes 4 and 225 through Lexington, following expiration of the Interstate Highway P .gram in 1972. This means that either the illus- trated diversion or some alternative to it (such as one using the railroad right-of-way) may well be available shortly post- 1975, so that reserve capacity in the Center for through- traffic growth beyond 1975 is not necessary in current designs. 3) The Massachusetts Avenue-Woburn Street diversion should be held in reserve as a feasible improvement for town execution should the more sweeping change be for any reason impossible when needed. MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE Adequate right-of-way and authority for change on Massa- ch etts Avenue exists, and needed construction funds are relatively minor, so reconstruction of the Avenue is well as- sured. On this basis, its improvement is an obvious first step in Center traffic improvement, preceding completion of the loop system, some of which involves costly land-takings and complex construction efforts. There are three capacity constraints on Massachusetts Avenue: the basic width of the Avenue itself between inter- sections, the Massachusetts Avenue-Waltham Street intersection, and the tangle at the Minuteman. Observation of traffic move- ment, verified by capacity computations, indicates that the three components of the problem are tightly interrelated, but that the Waith., Street intersection is the key. On the typical evening rush ho , Lexington Center handles traffic without quite using the full capacity of its parts. However, a greater-than-average traffic surge, bad weather or construction interference results in breakdown starting at Walth. ' Street. No matter how skillfully the intersection is ri naged by the police officer controlling the lights, traffic eastbound on Massachusetts Avenue and traffic on Walth- 1 Street start to back up. When the Massachusetts Avenue queue reaches the Minuteman, it badly constricts the capacity of that inter- section which, until the back-up reaches it, handles its traf- fic load without creating back-up of its own. Once tangled with traffic waiting for the Waith: I. Street light, the Min- uteman intersection becomes the worst spot in the system. The basic Avenue width and design affect this picture by affecting the flow of traffic reaching the Waltham Street in- tersection. Precious seconds of green light for the eastward -100- flow are often wasted when one or both lanes feeding it are blocked by cars stopped to park, drop off passengers, turn, or (apparently) daydream. The intersection would carry more vehicles if the road feeding it carried cars to it more smoothly. These same conclusions could be reached without personal observation, relying only on traffic counts and empirically derived capacity relationships. Table C-i illustrates a "design" using "standard" capacity figures for the existing roads and the actual flow rates measured on November 2, 1965 (before the free right turn arrow was installed). The design indicates that the capacity of the intersection to handle eastbound Massachusetts Avenue traffic and Waltham Street traffic were just about reached (whichthey were) with a little slack west- bound on Massachusetts Avenue, an inevitable result of rela- tively low flow westbound combined with the necessity to give westbound traffic a head start to clear the left turns into Waltham Street. The feeding lanes weren't taxed to capacity, but stopping one lane eastbound for any reason rendered the road unable to carry its load, whereas westbound that was neither theoretically nor actually the case. To determine the future configuration, ideally we would experiment with Massachusetts Avenue and watch how traffic works, but this is too costly. However, since a mathematical description of the existing condition faithfully reproduces the reality, use of those same mathematical relationships for future flows and alternative designs should give a sound basis for physical changes. A "balanced" design for Massachusetts Avenue should pro- vide enough capacity at Waltham Street to handle the 1975 typical evening rush hour, preferably with a small amount of extra capacity to handle raadom upward variations. The oc- casional extraordinary evening rush is normally not the basis for highway design, which normally does not provide con- gestion-free capacity for the 29 highest traffic hours during the year, or roughly one hour of one day every other week. On the same basis, the basic width of the Avenue should be able to feed the intersection and carry traffic away from it at a rate in excess of the intersectional capacity in order to allow for the inevitable blockages of one or more lanes which will sometimes occur. Waltham Street already has narrow sidewalks and banned parking at the intersection, so no physical change can be anticipated, and its capacity can be taken as fixed as is. This means that Waltham Street will require a green light showing at least 2C% of the time to carry its projected 1975 volume, leaving 72% of the time for pedestrians(say 6%, -101- TABLE C-1 1965 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE CONDITIONS WALTHAM ST. INTERSECTION • :Capacity* % 02 Capacity Approach Veh/Green Time Veh/Elapsed Actual Width Hour Green Hour Flow Massachusetts Avenue Eastbound 32 ' 1380 67 920 920 Westbound 31 ' 1270 73 930 750 Cialth. , St. North 20 ' 1500 21 310 210 pedestrians -- -- S -- -- LANES AT H ,`' BLOCK Westbound** 24' 2760 73 2020 600 Eastbound 27' 1960 67 1310 920 *Based on Table 6, Highway Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, G.P.O. Washington, 1950. **Not including Clalth_ i St. traffic, and with parking banned. -102- a slim figure reflecting relatively low peak-hour movement) and for Massachusetts Avenue (66%). The eastbound traffic must be given less time than the westbound in order to give the westbound turns into Waltham Street a head start. East- bound traffic, then, must be able to clear the intersection with a green light not more than 56% of the time. The "i:taxiMum traffic" configuration for Massachusetts Avenue is to use the widest roadway proposed, 64 feet from curb to curb, and use it all for moving traffic: no parking on either side near the intersection, and six lanes of movement. As shown on Table C-2(A), this would meet the 1975 projected traffic demand and exceed it by about 10%, with a great deal of "waste" capacity westbound on Massachusetts Avenue. If parking is retained on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue (Table C-2(B)), the westbound capacity fails to equal the flow anticipated, both because of less space fronting the light, and because of reduced capacity due to parking move- ments. This makes clear that no matter how the widths are manipulated, during peak hours by 1975, parking cannot be maintained on either side of the Avenue in the vicinity of the Waltham Street intersection if that intersection is to meet peak traffic demand. With a basic width of 56 feet from curb to curb and with no parking on the north side, the Waltham Street intersection can carry virtually the same traffic load as the six-lane "maximum" solution, with the exception of the non-critical westbound evening traffic. Either configuration can meet a peak traffic demand 10% in excess of the 1975 projections. Table C-3 clearly indicates that for the basic Avenue width, two. westbound lanes, whether bordered by parking or not, can easily handle all the traffic the intersection can pass. Eastbound, this is also true if the lanes are a full 12 feet wide. Four moving lanes of traffic, then, can bring to and take from the Waltham Street intersection all the traffic which it can handle even if the intersection is '.six lanes wide. There is no need, therefore, to consider more than 4 twelve-foot lanes for traffic movement other than at the intersection. -103- TABLE C-2 MASSACHUS S AVENUE - UALTAAM ST. INTERSESCTION (In all cases, no parking on south side at intersection) Capacity % of Capacity Approach Veh/Green Time Veh/Elapsed Proj . Width Houle Green Hour Vph A. 64 ft. curb to curb No parking north side Massachusetts Avenue Eastbound 32' 2480 55 1360 1250 Westbound 32' 2480 65 1610 900 Waltham Street North 20' 1500 29 440 400 Pedestrians - 6 - - B. 64 ft. curb to curb Parking north side Massachusetts Avenue Eastbound 33' 2560 56 1380 1250 Westbound 31' 1270 66 840 900 Waltham Street North 20' 1500 28 420 400 Pedestrians - - 6 - - C. 56 ft. curb to curb No parking north side Massachusetts Avenue Eastbound ' 33' 2560 54 1380 1250 Westbound 23' 1700 64 1090 900 Waith,r; Street North 20' 1500 30 450 400 pedestrians - - 6 - *Tables 17 and 18, Highway Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, U.S.G.P.©. , Washington, 1950. -104- TABLE C-3 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE AT HUNT BLOCK A. Westbound, no parking on north side FOR FLOW FROM MASS. AVE. B. ONLY Practical % of Time Capacity/Hr* Used Capacity Proj.Flow 2-12' lanes 3000 64 1920) 2-11' lanes 2560 64 1640) 900 2-10' lanes 2300 64 1470) B. Westbound, parking on north side 2-12' lanes 2540 66 1680) 2-11' lanes 2180 66 1440) 900 2'10' lanes 1950 66 1290) C. Eastbound, parking on south side 2-12' lanes 2540 54 1370) 2-11' lanes 2180 54 1170) 1250 2-10' lanes 1950 54 1050) *Table 6, Highway Research Board, Ibid. -105- A choice of roadway width depends upon more than peak- period traffic capacity; if dependent upon that factor alone, the 56 foot width 'would clearly be the choice. Other concerns, however, have been raised. One is space for snow removal; ob- viously less with 56 feet than with 64 feet, but more from Merl.- Street to Waltham Street than exists today. Similarly, there is concern over flexibility when the road is disturbed for construction; again, while 56 feet gives less maneuver- ability than 64 feet, it gives more than the present width through most of the Center. Trucks discourteously but legally stopping where there is no parking on the north would sometimes block one westbound lane, but the westbound lane capacity will be double expected vol es, and therefore able to temporarily handle the burden. Similar consideration applies to illegal auto parking on the north side. These "irrational" problems can't be quantified, but are quite real, and argue against reducing the basic Avenue width to the 48 feet which is theoretically adequate. Retention of an 8 foot parking lane in addition to the 4-12 foot travel lanes gives an extra emergency margin for operations removing snow, making repairs, or dealing with other contingencies. On the other hand, provision of the 64 foot configuration will still necessitate a north-side parking ban at the Waith Street intersection during peak hours by 1975, which like all temporary regulations, would be difficult to enforce. The remaining concerns over the configuration of Massa- chusetts Avenue have to do with parking adequacy and esthetics, not circulation. For traffic handling, the 56-foot cross sec- tion is equal to the 64-foot one, and adequate to readily handle peak rush-hour loads with a 10% reserve for all but about an hour every other week by 1975, a performance superior to the present conf ig ation's handling of present traffic. The de- cision on basic roadway width, therefore, should be based on the relative importance of parking provision and the pedes- trian promenade. LOOP ROAD SYSTEM The proposed loop road system consists largely of existing roads or 'ads through municipal parking . eas, with only one portion requiring new right-of-way not othe ise required. -106- TABLE C-4 LOOP ROAD COMPONENTS LENGTH COMPONENT TYPE USED WORK REQUIRED STAGING CLARKL STREET EXISTING ROAD 340 ft. TRAFFIC CONTROL EARLY CLAR1iE-MUZZEY LINK IN PROP. MON. LOT 300 ACQUIRE, DEVELOP EARLY MUZZEY-WALTRAM LINK IN EXIST. MUM. LOT 300 IMPROVE ALIGNMENT MIDDLE VINEBROOK ROAD EXISTING ROAD 500 TRAFFIC CONTROL LATE t 01-' GRANT RD. EXTENSION NEW ROUTE 360 ACQUIRE, DEVELOP LATE I GRANT ROAD EXISTING ROAD 500 TRAFFIC CONTROL EARLY GRANT-MERIAM LINK IN MUN. PARKING 1020 DEVELOP EARLY MERIAM STREET EXISTING ROAD 400 NONE - For full effectiveness, the entire loop system should be two-way, with 10 foot lanes unenc ',bared by parking movements. This cannot reasonably be achieved at all locations. Clarke Street must be one-way. It intersects Massachusetts Avenue at a point where turning movements are particularly difficult to handle, so has correctly been made one-way, but with the evolution of traffic movements in Lexington, is now one-way the wrong way. When Clarke Street was two-way, just over 1/4 of the traf- fic turning into it from the intersection was making the dif- ficult left turn across traffic; nearly three quarters were turning right, with relatively little conflict with traffic on Bedford St. and Massachusetts Avenue*. With the shifting bal- ance of traffic, it can be expected that over 3/4ths of the cars using Clarke Street if it were one--way south (away from Massachusetts Avenue) would use the easy right turn. In contrast, nearly half of the traffic now exiting from Clarke Street turns left on emerging, a difficult and hazardous move across the main stream of traffic, and one which inter- feres with the smooth operation of the intersection. The most difficult move of all, from Clarke Street to Meriam Street is attempted by few, but with seriously detrimental effects on the eastbound flow, the most critical flow in the Center. Re- versing the one-way provision wouldn't stop the reverse cross- Avenue movement, but the movement would then interfere pri- marily with the less critical westbound movement. It is hoped that the loop road system will be used by some traffic to bypass the traffic light at ussachusetts Avenue and Walth, . Street, relieving that point of at least a little of its burden. If the loop road is to serve this func- tion, it must go reasonably straight, and for safety it should not have parking backing onto it, as at present. To redesign in this way results in some loss of parking spaces, but makes a major difference in the ultimate value of the loop road system. The portion of the system from Vinebrook Road to Massa- chusetts Avenue vas shown more easterly on the earlier Planning Board Center Plan, utilizing an existing public easement. This ■uld be less costly than the now-chosen alig. ent, but would reproduce the Meriam Street - Clarke Street jog at the other end of town. To extend the line of Grant Street as il- lustrated must reasonably wait for some time, but the wait is worthwhile if it results in the correct solution instead of another compromise:. *1956 Traffic Study -108- Similarly, the earlier plan illustrated use of Raymond Street for much the same function as the new way illustrated between Clarke Street and Muzzey Street. The new way is more direct and therefore superior. However, the reasonableness of the preferred route depends upon town meeting action on parking. If municipal acquisition of parking between Clarke and Muzzey Streets is approved, this link of the road can be made an integral part of the parking system. If such ac- quisition is disapproved, it is planned to require private off-street parking in the area through zoning controls. The cross-lot route would take away land now used for private parking, and limit the ability of others to provide it, making the zoning requirements unreasonable. Therefore, Raymond Street would be the recommended route if parking between Clarke and Muzzey Streets is to be privately provided. OTHER SYSTEM COMPONENTS • The intersection at the Minuteman, discussed earlier, is perhaps the most harassing in Lexington. If it were any other intersection, its improvement could be simply accomplished with traffic islands and signals, but because it forms such a critical setting, the visual competition of traffic control devices should be minimized. Reversing the direction of Clarke Street as recommended would aid the intersection, as will recommended improvements at Waltham Street to prevent back-up. The effects of those changes are unlikely to be sufficient to solve the problem, but should be observed before further changes are made at the Minuteman. • The next step, in order of severity of effect, would be painted directional aids on the pavement. These can be highly effective, and need not be esthetically offensive. A paint scheme to provide a left-turn storage lane and to clarify the place where left turns occur would aid the intersection without visual intrusion. Next in order of severity, might be slight realignment of Massachusetts Avenue to make all turns from or into it at right angles, further gaining clarity and also gain- ing space for Minuteman photographers, Streets other than those mentioned should require no major physical changes to accommodate anticipated traffic. Re- shaping of Depot Square is called for to facilitate pedestrian movements. Edison hay can, if the railroad is abandoned, also be abandoned, permitting the visual "closing" of Depot Square. The Square itself serves a valuable "U=turn" function, and is retained as a traffic element for that, among other purposes. -109- i :rim 111111111111111.1 rn CO la rn ' 0 ---„,ft 1\ --, iiimio rITInCal25712°. 2, IIIIIIIIIIII t t, m. rn (1 1—L-_-13 fil rn MINUTEMAN INTERSECTION 50 0 50 t00 ILLUSTRATING MINOR RELOCATION OF MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE AND PAINTED CHANNELIZATION s CALE IN FEET , ^ IW Completion of these recommended changes in the circula- tion system should make Lexington Center easier to visit and pass through in 1975 than it is today. Few centers are likely to cope with their growth so well. -110- PARKING NEEDS Lexington was one of the early leaders in Massachusetts in providing large-scale off-street parking areas. Raving done so no doubt has been at least partially responsible for the con- tinuing co«;uercial health of the Center, and for the continu- ally increasing tax revenues derived from it. At issue now is what actions need be taken to insure that Lexington's standards of parking space adequacy r- pain competitive. PARKING :. :; TIOS A s vey of parking space in Lexington Center was under- taken in June, 1965, with the following results within the zoned Central District plus a few adjacent parcels: M _•icipally-provided parking Curb metered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Curb u._ etered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Off-street metered. . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Off-street u._+ etered. . . . . . . . . . 222 Subtotal 620 Privately-provided parking Open to general use. . . . . . . . . . . 405 Special reserved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Subtotal 623 Total parking available 1243 Not all of these spaces are equally effective, and some shouldn't really be co .ted at all. This count includes some parking on Raymond Street so distant as to be little utilized today. It includes spaces occupied by cars awaiting sale, and .derground spaces reserved for motel guests. It includes un- paved space on the far side of the railroad. Eliminating those "marginal" spaces reduces the total of "good" spaces to about 1060. -111- There is a degree of non-commercial demand placed on these spaces by library users, residents of the Center, and a few others. This means that just about 1000 well-located spaces are available to service commercial employees and customers. There are about 290,000 square feet of commercial floor space in this same area, which means that there are just under 3i good available spaces to service each 1000 square feet of com- mercial floor area. The following comparisons suggest the rela- tive adequacy of this provision. Zoning requirement, C-1 District10 spaces: 1000 s.f. Probable ratio, Burlington Shopping Canter* 9 spaces: 1000 s.f. Belmont Center** 4 spaces: 1000 s.f. Greenfield downtown* 3 spaces: 1000 s.f. LEXINGTON CENTER* 3 spaces:1000 s.f. Cushing Sq., Belmont** 3 spaces:1000 s.f. Athol downtown* 1-3/4 spaces " " Milford downtown* 1 spaces: 10O0 s.f. Greenfield, Athol and Milford are used for comparison be- cause they are communities with commercial centers of size com- parable to Lexington's, and because EDA has intimate familiarity with them. Belmont is an interesting neighbor, with Belmont Center outstandingly successful in adaptation to automotive pressures, Cushing Square far less so. If vacancy rates are an indication of commercial "health", the correlation between park- ing and health is a good one. Milford and Athol have extremely high vacancy rates, Cushing Square is in some trouble, while Lexington and Belmont Centers are solid, virtually without ground floor vacancy except for turnover. Considering the stable, low-income population it serves, Greenfield has a low vacancy rate, though not comparable with Lexington, illustra- ting that parking adequacy is an important element in success, but is not the sole ingredient. To some extent, the figures are deceptive. An unusually large share of Lexington's 3i spaces per 1000 s.f. is provided privately, is more than adequate for its purpose, and is in many cases fenced off such that the "surplus" isntt useful to * EDA estimates. ** EDA computation, based on Adams, Howard and Greeley, "Traffic Circulation and Parking, Technical Report #2, Belmont General Plan", December, 1962. -112- the Center as a whole. Thus, at the same time that the muni- cipal lot between CTalth• and Muzzey Streets may be j - , Red, adjacent private lots may be virtually vacant. The store vacancy rate of nearly zero in Lexington also enters in; =;ny of the Co ,_. _ ',ities used for comparison have relatively large +ounts of vacant space, especially on upper floors. If comp- isons of parking in relation to occupied space were made, Lexington's relative standing would be sub- stantially lowered. OT.I;K MEAS z S OF ADEQUACY One objective measure of actual usage of provided spaces is parking meter receipts, tabulated below: PA: ING AaER RECEIPTS BY ,R On-Street Off-Street Meters(134) Meters(217) Total 1955 $7,690 $ 7,690 1956 6,890 6,890 1957 7,430 7,430 1958 7,060 7,060 1959 6,640 6,640 1960 7, 550 7,550 1961 7,280 7,280 1962 7,050 1,620* 6,670 1963 7,620 7,850 15,470 1964 6,940 9,820 16,760 1964 per meter $51.00 $45.30 ' $47.70 *Meters installed in November Source: Lexington To" ' Clerk's Office. PARKING METED. RECEIPTS BY X10 (curb parking only) May, 1964 $714 November $622 J «e 643 Dec- i ber 542 July 595 January, 1965 524 Aug - t 635 February 468 September 726 M- ch 555 October 531 April 539 -113- Receipts show no long-range trend, but just random fluctu- ation based on vagaries of weather and circumstance. Monthly variations show little easily explained pattern, responding as much to weather as to seasonal sales patterns. What these figures don't show is peak period demand, the most critical is- sue. However, a great deal can be gleaned from them. A 1960 study revealed a national average of $74 income per meter at curb, and $66 off-street, but with wide variations among communities. EDA's experience in communities of this size in this region suggests that the curb meter revenues in Lexington are surprisingly low, but that the off-street revenues are closer to normal. This indicates one of four things: there is a low demand, or the demand extends over an unusually short interval during the week, or there are meters extended beyond high-demand areas, or enforcement is not as stringent as in "average" communities. Visual observation suggests that the answer lies largely in the last two factors. The extreme outlying meters get very little use, pulling down the at-curb average. Turn-over studies showed a substantial proportion of the parkers to be violating time limits, which rigid enforcement would prevent. An ad- ditional consideration is the banning of parking at the highest usage locations during evening peak hours. The lack of a rising trend in annual meter receipts despite rising sales activity illustrates the inability of the Center to increase its off-peak period usage, and effectively demon- strates that there is no super-abundance of municipal parking spaces. All of the well-located spaces were used at peak per- iods in 1955, just as they are now. Had they not already been so used in 1955, receipts would have increased over this period. Monthly receipts confirm this picture. Even Christmas buy- ing doesn't pull enough people into the Center during off-peak periods to swell meter receipts sufficiently to offset weather set-backs. 1John R. Kerstetter, "Mechanized Hitching-Post, 1960", Traffic Quarterly, October, 1950. -114- Parking turnover was observed on Friday, June 11, 1965, with these results: % Turnover % Turnover % Turnover 10 AM-4 PM 4:30 PM-5:30 PM 10 AM-5:30 PM M sicipal Lot ."A" 85 81 91 (North of Mass.Ave.) Municipal Lot "B" 85 80 94 (South of Mass.Ave.) Metered at c b 89 79 97 Municipal Lot "C" 47 57 75 (North of Railroad) M sicipal Lot "D" 54 - - (Old Fire Station site) This understates the length of stay, especially in off- street areas. The method used was to record registrations by exact location, then to check again at a later period, co sting the car as having "turned over" if it was no longer at the s- fle place. Many cars s' iply shuffle around in the lots, whether as a result of 1 .ch or business trips, or to evade detection. Another s vey was made on Sat day, November 20, differ- entiating between sides of Massachusetts Avenue. No significant difference was fo .d in t nover rates between sides of the Avenue, or between the Saturday experience and the weekday ex- perience. The results are strikingly silo= for metered areas. Ap- parently not less than 15% of the metered spaces in off-street areas are held by meter-hogs, as • e 10% of the on-street spaces. Except for these people, parkers move in and out quite rapidly, with few staying beyond an hour except those staying well beyond. The pres ""ably "all-day parkers" lot north of the railroad clearly caters to a significant n +ber of shorter- term shoppers as well, with a t n-over rate far higher than might be supposed. The real issue, of course, is how often customers are in- convenienced by inability to find a well-located space. Dis- cussion with shoppers suggests that, in general, parking spaces are readily found during the daytime, even on most Saturdays. Th sday and Friday nights, however, there is frequently dif- ficulty in finding space not only during holiday shopping -115- seasons, but quite generally throughout the year. These sub- jective comments tend to corroborate the objective statistical findings: parking acts as a constraint on trade during the busi- est periods, but not otherwise. More parking would unquestion- ably be of assistance to business, but at a diminishing rate of return, since the shortage is only of relatively short duration. More parking more distant from primary attractions than the furthest reaches of the Muzzey-Waltham lot would be of almost no value, except for employees if provision of such space were coupled with rigid meter enforcement. Adequacy of parking is not uniform throughout the Center. Given present activity patterns, adequacy of provision seems to follow this orders based on observation, parking ratios, and customer comment. LEAST FREQUENT SHORTAGE OF SPACES Meriam - Depot Square East end, Massachusetts Avenue Depot Square - Edison Way Muzzey - Waltham St. Clark - Muzzey St. MOST FREQUENT SHORTAGE OF SPACES The most severe problem, between Clark and Muzzey Streets, is largely caused by the presence there of two banks, which typically create enormous parking demand for short turn-over parking. FUTURE PROVISIONS The sizing and location of parking will be an element in the design plan for Lexington Center, and isn't something which can be specified separately, However, certain relationships can be outlined as a guide for that design. The amount of parking required will depend upon how much of it is in general-use areas. As noted earlier, the indi- vidually-controlled lots are often wasteful of capacity, so the more parking which is provided for common use, the less the total amount need be. Parking required also depends somewhat upon the specific "mix" of commerce. Parking demand for movies overlaps almost not at all with parking demand for professional offices; both these overlap retail trade parking demand to some degree. Consideration of the activity "mix" may cause some detail ad- justment of ratios. The amount of "walk-in trade" is critical. Relatively few walk to Lexington Center today, but if the Center contained or was surrounded with high density apartment units, walk-in trade -116- would be greatly increased, reducing the amount of parking necessary to service any given count of coulercial trade. (The apartments themselves, of course, would require parking facilities.) The accompanying diagram illustrates the general expecta- tion of parking needs over the next decade. Something on the order of 160 additional spaces could be well justified today (half again the total provided in the Walth., Street - Muzzey Street lot) to bring Lexington Center up to the standard of Belmont Center. To opti. . 11y serve co uercial growth to the projected potential level of 410,000 square feet of cots,'ercial space without nearby apartments would require adding 630 net spaces-to present parking facilities. Given the walk-in trade of 3-500 nearby apartments, this requirement might be reduced to an addition of 440 net spaces. The utility of spaces drops off sharply as they become more difficult to drive into and out of, . _;e at different elevation from the destination, or are more than 500 feet from the destination, unless the attraction of shopping in Lexington is made f. stronger than it is today. Ten spaces 1000 feet away don't substitute for one 200 feet away, The types of spaces required fall into three distinct categories. First, there are spaces for long-term occupancy by downto ' employees or long-term visitors. About 30% of the present spaces are so allocated, and perhaps 20% of the present spaces are so used. If the Center is to grow co. ercially in competition with highway-oriented centers, it too will have to use retailing methods involving fewer employees, so that future employee and long-term parking provision certainly need not exceed the present 20% of total usage. These spaces can be distant, or elevated, or dergro Id, or difficult to get into and out of, and should not, as many of them now do, usurp the very best locations close to the stores. Second, there are spaces for the people who are doing just a single quick errand. The only space now regulated for this use is at two banks, whose need for such space is 'usually high, Others also depend on this quick service trade, which is easily disco aged by inability to park quickly and close to its destination. It is for these customers which curb parking has extraordinary value, and accordingly at least some of the curb parking should perhaps have even shorter time regulations than it now has, or a new physical config ation devised to provide for these shoppers. Eighteen percent of downto sales are now in "convenience goods", a share likely to decline if rebuilding of the Center is highly successful, since convenience goods sales is typically a relatively low-rent operation. Ac- cordingly, only about 10% of all spaces downto need be designed for quick turnover. -117- PARKING - FLOOR SPACE RELATIONSHIP Iii v 2000 Cr W VI 0 1800- ---♦q`� V P X490 LI., )7/17r-sq. ���/� Isoo � PQR� cr Vi /4,, 1400 , vh40° tn O �� PROJECTED 0 � MAXIMUM V3 !200 JPS FLOOR SPACE W p44 ��\/ LEVEL, I975 o .p a. 1000 O �4P 0o O PRESENT SITUATION i,z oy\ co- c)eoo �QP--�-ao°a cc D, .y� EL le% O 600.4 0 0 o 400,u. r 0 CC Lai Ui 200 J Z 0, ' A. 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE SOURCE: EDA ANALYSIS Third, there are spaces for the usual shopper with more than one place to go to, but not often with a full half-day of shopping. For those people, the one and two hour meter limits are quite appropriate, and the amount of inconvenience involved in present parking lot location is not excessive. Tourists have very special parking needs. Firsts they want access to the Green, so want to park nearby, at present a real problem on nice s ;+a+,er days, and an even greater problem a decade from now when the vol p,e of visitors has swollen. Second, if they are to use the Center, it is likely to be for brief shopping only, and a stranger's fear of disorientation, even if nothing else, will prejudice him against any parking areas difficult to reach, or out of sight of primary tourist objectives. -118- MERCHANT SURVEY In November, 1935, a survey of merchants was taken to gain insight into their judgement of the importance of curb- side parking. Thirty-seven responses were received following door-to-door interview efforts by merchant volunteers. The question asked was "Are you in favor of No Parking on Massachusetts Avenue in the Center provided Off Street Parking is provided?" To avoid distorting results through interviewer interpretation, no further elaboration of the question was al- lowed. Some but not all respondents were fully informed on the issue being considered; whether or not the value of a land- scaped pedestrian promenade would justify relocation of curb parking. Some interpreted the question as meaning that each choice provided an equal number of parking spaces, and the only distinction was as to location. Others interpreted it to mean that removed parking would not or could not be fully replaced in number. Despite these interpretational variations and the relatively small number of respondents, the results do, as hoped, give a good guide to merchant judgement on curb parking. Prior to the survey, a meeting of Center merchants had been held to discuss the issues, but was not heavily attended. One descriptive article in the Lexington Minuteman was the only other source of information for rerchants on plans for the Center before the survey. Despite this lack of prior explana- tion, and despite long tradition, nearly half of the merchants favored giving up curb parking in response to a question which, as stated, offered no compensating feature, such as improved traffic flow or amenity. Analysing responses by type of enterprise and location gives predictable results. "Convenience goods" retailers, selling food, drugs, or liquor, responded 5-0 against parking relocations. These businesses largely sell standardized goods, have competitors in many neighborhoods, and service primarily "quick trips", so that even minor inconvenience of car-store access looms large in the minds of customers, and amenities are probably of relatively minor consequence, or at least this appears to be the judgement of this group of retailers. -119- MERCHANT Y "Are you in favor of No ParkingMassachusetts ve Center provided Off Street Parking is rovi ?" TYPE OF BUSINESS Convenience h r ' Goods Goods Service (Merchant ocatio Sales e Total FAVOR PARKING REMOVAL (Massachusetts Av . North) (Massachusetts Ave. South) 1 (Other Locations) RETENTIONTOTAL 0 12 6 18 rAvort PARKING (Massachusetts v (Massachusetts Ave. o (Other Locations In sharp contrast, the general merchandise, gift, and ap- parel stores, grouped as Shoppers' Goods Sales, responded 12-7 in favor of parking relocation. These stores sell less standardized goods, and goods for which persons will spend substantial time to enjoy comparison shopping. A few seconds difference in car-store access is obviously less important to a dress-buyer than to a newspaper-buyer, and "atmosphere" is more important; merchant response reflects these relative values. Service establishments - banks, restaurants, etc., share characteristics of both convenience and shoppers' goods outlets; the 7-6 vote for parking retention is therefore much as would be expected. Those not directly on Massachusetts Avenue clearly benefit least from location there of parking, but stand to benefit if a powerful design concept brings increased activity to the Center as a whole. These merchants voted 3.-1 in favor of park- ing relocation. A strong difference in attitude is exhibited between the north and south sides of Massachusetts Avenue, ex- plainable only in part by the different distribution of busi- ness types between sides of the road. Respondents located on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue split 6-6 on the issue; the south side respondents favored retention of curb parking 12-4. Such survey results can be used to guidepolicy only with great caution. Not surveyed, for instance, are the future merchants of Massachusetts Avenue. What is done will condition who they are, and would therefore influence any future poll on the question. If Lexington Center is to prosper, and serve a valuable service function for residents, it will have to grow in shoppers' goods outlets; clothing, gifts, and general merchandise. The collective advice of the Center's estab- lished shoppers' goods stores indicates that to attract more of the same to the Center, parking should be relocated. The scheme being proposed for Massachusetts Avenue park- ing actually involves no such simple "either-or" as the survey posed. Some parking is proposed to be removed on both sides of Massachusetts Avenue, some is proposed to be retained, primarily on the south, where most of the merchant objectors to parking relocation are established. Viewed at the simplest level, the survey of merchants shows that the merchants are split on the issue of the best location for parking. Upon analysis, the survey reveals: a) To best satisfy shoppers goods stores, the Center's prime attractions now and in the future, parking should be relocated off Massachusetts Avenue. -121- b) Some curb parking is important for convenience stores. Although numerous, these stores account for less than 20% of the Center's sales; if properly regulated, relatively few parking spaces can service their demand. c) To satisfy the present merchant distribution, parking on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue is far more im- portant than that on the north. All of these conclusio• can be viewed as supporting the design being proposed for the reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue to provide a broad pedestrian promenade, and to retain parking on one side of Massachusetts Avenue only. -122- PARKING PLAN Harvard Square and Downtown Boston provide examples of the fact that, if the attractiveness of shopping is high enough, business can prosper even if parking is inadequate in numbers, costly, or .. ,,,,.. ,,,... inconvenient. Downtown Walth.,.am , V oburn, . d:� 0 � ��r . e�K�,�u& lrovLd amples of th.. e Ysof st ' ngiattractivenessan� d� provding� ' parking. .. Lexington Center's present commercial health suggests there is reasonable balance between parking and commercial space and attractiveness, and the "Parking Needs" study quan- tified a basic need to maintain that balance, providing approx- imately 3i parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of com- mercial floor space. If the Center is rade more attractive in other res. .ct • ' ' . ' e uld,.be th_ attractiveness__of_the Center's b .aad_physical con- ditior s deteriOrates, -even--3 -spaces/1000.bwill-be,.a judged......in adequate parking support,or , s nceit is traditionally the "goat". Where the Center has its greatest compactness, parking spaces are of broad usefulness, many destinations being served from a single parking location. Provision of these spaces is logically a public responsibility, and in the past, a respon- sibility Lexington has been ready to accept. Towards the periphery of Lexington Center, however, commercial activities are not compactly arranged, and parking tends to serve only its single most proximate activity. This parking, rather than being of general or public benefit, benefits only the users of the single activity it serves, so is logically a private re- sponsibility. It is proposed that the job of providing the additional parking required for the planned development of Lexington Cen- ter be divided between private and public bodies in accordance with its usefulness, whether private or public, using off- street parking requirements in the zoning bylaw to insure that the private obligation is carried out. The "Zoning Revisions" report discusses the regulations required to achieve this. -123- The public responsibility, given the proposed zoning changes, is to insure adequacy of parking provisions within the area from 500 feet north of Massachusetts Avenue to 500 feet south of Massachusetts Avenue, between Clarke Street and Meri: I. Street on the west and Grant Street and its proposed extension on the east. Five hundred feet is not arbitrarily selected; it is based on the present pattern of activities, and long experience of many cods,unities which indicates that, except under extra- ordinary conditions, customers won't walk over 500 feet to their destination even at Christmas. Massach .setts Avenue is now and is designed to remain the primary customer desti , tion, so parking more than 500 feet from it will be of questionable public utility, except possibly as employee parking. T ti", I ;" EDIATE Changes in Lexington Center anticipated over the next several years all move in the direction of increasing the need for additional public off-street parking spaces. Four n. buildings and an addition are planned or already under con- struction within the "primary zone", or area desig' -.ted for public parking responsibility. Three of these projects re- sult in the elimination of some existing parking spaces, for a loss of about forty spaces in all. Up to forty more are recouuended for removal from Massachusetts Avenue to 'oath traffic flows and to make possible a pedestrian promenade (the provision of which somewhat reduces parking needs by in- creasing the Center's attractiveness) . At present, there are 3i parking spaces per 1,000 s.f. of co,' nercial floor area in the primary zone; this ratio will drop to 2-3/4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. within two years if no public actions to expand parking are taken. Over 200 addi- tional parking spaces are iu.ediately required to offset lost spaces and to provide for already progr. ed coi,+tercial expan- sion. Optimally, these should be not over 500 feet from Massa- chusetts Avenue, shouldn't open "gaps" by removing structures visually enclosing the Center's streets, and shouldn't dis- place existing businesses. In an area having virtually no vacant land, this clearly isn't easily done. An obvious and long-anticipated first step is the develop- ment of the m •icipally-owied land north of the railroad tracks and east of the present paved area. Even this isn't easy, since the spaces have limited utility without improved pedes- trian access between them and Massachusetts Avenue, and access across the railroad tracks is likely to be gained, if at all, only following petition to the D.P.U. and installation of ex- pensive automatic warning gates. -124- TABLE P--1 PRIMARY ZONE PARKING Commercial Ratio Parking Floor Area Spaces/1000 Spaces* Sq,Ft. Sq.Ft. Summer, 1965 situation 975 282,000 3.46 Anticipated changes by 1968 New construction (net) - 39 443000 Massachusetts Avenue Changes - 39 Resultant if no new parking 897 326,000 2.75 North of railroad lot +145 Clarke-Muzzey lot + 26 Muzzey-Waltham structure t 60 Resultant with parking program 1128 326,000 3.48 Projected growth to 1975 140 40,000 Planned 1975 situation 1268 366,000 3.48 *Available to service commerce. -125- By acquiring a single house and portions of a n uber of residential parcels, enough spaces could be developed north of the railroad to statistically satisfy all immediate needs, but some of those spaces would be so inconveniently located that their value would not justify the difficulties of land- taking. Using only the municipally-owned land, plus land- takings to gain access to Grant Street, about 145 spaces can be gained, leaving nearly 100 to be gained elsewhere within the iinediate future. ' Between Clarke and Muzzey Streets, a great deal of space is devoted to parking, but the use is inefficient. The n +giber of spaces can be increased, their usefulness augmented, and assurance gained that present parking space won't be usurped for new structures, by public acquisition of open land in the middle of the block, and by development there of a ified parking area. Fewer than 30 spaces would be added, but exist- ing spaces now reserved for infrequent use would become avail- able for general use, making the functional impact more dra- matic than mere addition of 30 spaces. Those are the last "easy" spaces in the Center. The re- maining spaces required must either violate one of the earlier stated guides (by opening gaps onto street frontages, by con- demning existing businesses, or by location more than 500 feet from Massachusetts Avenue), or must be gained in the third dimension by using multi-level structures. Multi-level struc- tures are advocated, with the space between Muzzey and Waltham Streets the logical first location for such development. Parking structures are still strangers in suburbia, but are unlikely to be so for long. As land costs climb and al- ternative means of maintaining parking-destination proximity dwindle, multi-level parking is increasingly used outside of metropolitan centers. The alternative, acquiring sound com- mercial properties, in Lexington would be just as costly as parking structures, perhaps more so, and would d. {age the com- pact fabric of the Center which gives it its character and pedestrian scale. Between Waltham and Muzzey Streets, use of a multi-level struct a can provide sufficient parking spaces to meet the remaining iaediate parking needs of the pr' , ary zone, and also allow reduction of the land area covered with parking, making possible development of landscaped plazas between the parking and surrounding co. 4ercial structures, and also making possible development of theMuzzey-Walthl, link in the pro- posed loop road to the advocated standard, twenty feet wide, with no abutting parking. -126- PARKING TO 1975 The development potential of the primary zone of Lexington Center, beyond the substantial development already programmed and discussed earlier, is quite limited until the question of the railroad right-of-way is settled. No matter how the ques- tion of the railroad is resolved, the major post-1968 oppor- tunities for commercial development in the Center lie north of Massachusetts Avenue. Whether or not the railroad (or some other form of transit) remains will determine the shape and extent of such development, so that it would be unwise to in- vest major public funds or encourage private investment in the area until the question is settled. Public land is the key to development of the north of Massachusetts Avenue area, so its planned and controlled de- velopment can be assured. Sale of land now used for public parking and for Edison Way must inevitably precede any major commercial expansion in the area; funds so realized can help offset costs of the ex- panded parking made necessary by the commercial growth. Because of the uncertainty of development in the vicinity of the railroad, any present plans for the area north of Massa- chusetts Avenue must be illustrative only. Shown is one of the possibilities; development around a controlled-environment mall, adding perhaps 40,000 square feet of commercial space, and requiring net addition of 140 parking spaces. The parking solution illustrated, use of a multi-level structure just north of existing buildings, has advantages of proximity and possible integration with multi-level mall development. The same number of spaces could be acquired further north by sur- face parking expansion to Oakland Street, but at excessive distance, and with unfortunate visual impact. FINANCING Computation of the municipal cost of off-street parking is far from simple, although the initial capital outlays can be estimated with fair accuracy. Public investment in off- street parking presumably reinforces commercial values, which in turn are a base for taxes helping to pay for the parking, but a precise relationship between parking and assessments can't be drawn. Table P-2 illustrates the direct costs and revenues in- volved in the next three recommended steps in off-street park- ing, but omits indirect revenues. Development of all of these facilities, with the present meter rates continued, would mean -127- TABLE P-2 20- R PARKING COST ANALYSIS N. OF RR CLARKE-MUZZEY MUZZEY-WALT ; w (Surface) (S face) (Structure) • N ber of spaces 125 156 180 Per Space Total Per Space Total Per Space Total Land acquisition $ 16 $. 2,000 $ 550 $ 05,000 $ 0 $ 0 Development Cost $ 320 $40,000** $ 160 $'.25,000 $1,500 $270,000 Ass ed 20-yr bonds $ 336 $42,000 $ 710 $1100000 $1,500 $270,000 Annual Principal $ 2, 100 $ 5,500 $ 13,000 Int. (Ave.@ 3%) $ 600 $ 1,700 $ 3,900 1 Maintenance $ 20 $ 2,500 $ 20 $ 3,100 $ 20 $ 3,600 t,' Lost taxes* $ 100 $ 1,300 0 opo Income $ 25 $ 3,100 $ 25 $ 3_,900 $ 35 $ 6,300 Annual cost - income $ 2,200 $ 7,700 $ 14,200 20-yr gross cost $44,000 $154,000 $284,000 Residual Value Land @ 100% $ 2,000 $ 85,000 $ 0 Structures @ 50% $ 8,000** $ 0 $130/.000 Net 20-yr cost $ 34,000 $ 69,000 $154,000 Net annual cost per space $ 14 $ 22 $ 43 *On acquired land @ $4011000 Assessed Value. **Includes 2 crossing gates. an annual "subsidy" of about $10,000, over half the antici- pated tax increment from the new commercial development which creates the need for the parking program. Also gained, how- ever, would be space for most of the loop-road system, and space for landscaped plazas. These figures allow evaluation of a number of policy al- ternatives. The direct cost of relocation of 34 parking spaces along Massachusetts Avenue to allow development of a pedestrian mall can be computed by using the cost of the most costly spaces to be provided, $43 per space, plus $52 per meter removed in lost income, or not over $3,200 per year for the 34 spaces relocated. Assignment of responsibility for parking in the Clarke Street-Muzzey Street area to private interests would sacrifice much of the area's potential use- fulness, and make provision of the loop-road more difficult, but would "save" $1,200 per year (before considering the ef- fect of changed zoning requirements upon land values and tax assessments) . Doubling meter fees would make the parking program more than self-supporting; fee elimination would almost double the projected annual "deficit". The demand for shoppers' park- ing has been found to be insensitive to price variation; the results of parking meter removal have been uneven in those communities attempting it, while doubling fees where parking pressures are great has had negligible effect. If the meters (or gates at a garage) will accept any of a variety of coins, minimizing the "wrong change" problem, $0.10 per hour for parking should not be a significant cus- tomer deterrent. It is vital to the health of Lexington Center that adequate parking be provided; to secure that park- ing, it is important that it can be provided without ultimate cost to the taxpayer; therefore both the parking program and the higher parking rates it suggests are recommended. SPECIAL PAIRING NEEDS Quick-turnover parking is required for convenience goods stores. The "Parking Needs" study estimated a reasonable de- mand for such spaces amounting to 10% of total parking pro- vision, or about 110 spaces in the immediate future, 130 by 1975. Forty of these are proposed to be provided on Massa- chusetts Avenue, forty at the curb on other streets in the Center, and the remainder in private lots such as those at several of the banks. -129- TABLE P-3 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE PARKING N ER OF SPACES 1965 Spaces 1966 Spaces 1975 Spaces Recom-- Recon- mended Alternate mended Alternate LOCATION Plan Plan Plan Plan SOUTH SIDE Clarke to Muzzey 12 12 12 12 12 Muzzey to Waltham 16 11 it 11 11 Waltham to Wallis 12 12 12 12 12 Total South 40 35 35 35 35 NORTH SIDE Meriam to Depot 5 0 5 0 5 Depot to Depot 5 5 5 0 5 Depot to Waltham 7 0 7 0 7 Waith- to Edison 11 8 11 0 11 Edison to Grant 6 6 6 0 6 Grant to Town Offices 5 5 5 5 5 Total North 39 24 39 5 39 GRA apt TOTAL 79 59 74 40 74 -130- n The present uniform pattern of distribution of conven- ience-oriented parking spaces would be altered by proposals for relocation of some curb parking from Massachusetts Avenue. It can be expected that, in time, the pattern of tenure will also alter, with the convenience goods outlets tending to lo- cate where there is quick turn-over parking, shoppers' goods outlets tending to prefer the environment provided by the pedestrian promenade. This organization of the pattern of activity should ultimately improve the convenience and use- fulness of the Center. Employees and merchants have the best parking in Lexington, just as they have in most commercial centers of this size. The top and most distant portions of any proposed parking struc- tures and the most distant portions of surface parking lots should be regulated to permit all day parking, and merchants and their employees should be encouraged to use those spaces, releasing their present "back-door" spaces for customer use, especially for quick trips. The anticipated commercial expansion on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue is certain to place new pressures on the present parking north of the railroad, requiring metering for the first several rows of spaces to insure their best use. Tourists visiting the Green already have some parking dif- ficulties. If, as expected, tourist visits triple by 1975, positive provisions will have to be made for their parking. For a variety of reasons, it would be desirable for tourist parking to be near the joining of the historic and commercial centers, but commercial demand for parking there is likely to squeeze out tourists at least on Saturdays. Space primarily designated for tourist use should supplement signs guiding visitors to the municipal lot off Meriam Street. Should the railroad right-of-way be abandoned, it could be used to park perhaps 50 cars, nicely screened, with visitors then being led past Buckman Tavern to the Green on foot. The post-1975 development of a Bedford Street traffic diversion (see Circu- lation Plan) may result in creation of an alternate or more adequate area for tourist parking. A handful of cars now park in the Center all day while their drivers take the train to Boston. By 1975, these auto/ transit users will either have been eliminated or greatly in- creased in number. Their parking is "dead", their driver's contribution to the Center's economy consisting largely of newspaper purfhases and banking. At the present level this is no problem because of the small numbers, but a successful transit operation would create parking demand which cannot reasonably be handled at the Depot. The location of a transit -131- stop or stops near the Center will require careful analysis when and if such stops are required. Few would use the transit with Lexington Center as ultimate destination, but many would want to leave their space-cons ' ng cars near the stops, so location should be outside of the compact Center. Optimal would be a location, say near Grant Street, where commuter parking needntt compete for space with Center shopper parking, but station-Center proximity is good enough that mid-day com- bined Lexington/Boston shopping trips would be easily serviced. -132- W u. RECONSTRUCTION OF MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION OF MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE Previous reports on Lexington Center have dealt with Massachusetts Avenue along with other considerations. This report deals only with Massachusetts Avenue, and is intended to answer the questions which have been raised concerning the proposed development of the newly-widened right-of-way. ' CTLY WHAT IS PROPOSED? The Lexington Center Steering Cormittee, the Design Ad- visory Group, and Economic Development Associates concur on a plan which would use some of the new right-of-way on Massa- chusetts Avenue for added street width, the rest for a pedes- trian promenade on the north side of the Avenue, and for widen- ing the sidewalk on the south side of the Avenue. Space for 4 moving vehicles would also be gained by relocation of most of the parking on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue, and traffic flow would be smoothed by relocation of some spaces from the south side. The intent of this plan is to provide a "front yard" for Lexington Center no less thoughtfully developed than the front yards of the Town's residents, while at the same time serving the functional demands placed on the roadway. The intent is ' ` to provide an element of continuity joining the presently di- vided historic, co' nercial, and civic components of the Center. I The intent is to develop an enviro. .ent in Lexington Center ex- pressive of the kind of corgi «,unity Lexington is, not just "Any- whereville". To this end, a landscape el- rent strong enough to be under- stood at automotive speed is required; a double row of trees would provide this, running a continuous ribbon of green from the town offices to the Green. Detail at finer or pedestrian scale should consistently support the theme of a unique Lexing- ton, with smaller plantings, benches, even lawns developed in the spaces between pairs of trees, with variety and individual- ity in the detail development. This design would give continuity viewed from the auto; contrast, variety and surprise from the pedestrian side. This is consistent with the scale of the -133- Av historical town center which is being lost as commercial units get larger and increasingly are designed for the eye of the autoist, not the pedestrian. By the control of scale in the public space, historic relevance can be preserved despite pri- vate changes, and can perhaps influence those private changes to adopt a more sympathetic scale. With buildings separated by the widened 100 foot right-of- way, and reconstruction resulting in lower buildings than in the past, Massachusetts Avenue will lose some of its sense of enclosure, and there is a danger that, as in many communities, the dominant visual feature will become the road. The proposed scheme would restore some of the former sense of enclosure to the Avenue, and reduce the travelled way to only that func- tionally required for traffic. In addition to visually reducing separation, the proposed plan would put the curbs about 4 pedes- trian steps closer together to the benefit of both pedestrian and the motorist, who would thus be delayed less for pedestrian crossings. Eventually, the themes of greenery, provision for pedes- trian comfort, and carefully textured surfaces would extend be- yond Massachusetts Avenue, tying the Avenue with Depot Square and the off-street parking areas. In time, the other commercial centers of the Town should receive complementary design efforts, as should the development of visual coherence for the whole of the Town's Massachusetts Avenue-Bedford Street axis. Decisions on the development of Massachusetts Avenue will be made at the March, 1966 town meeting. These reports are de- � signed to aid in that decision, as have been the numerousP ublic '. ...m.. ....... ........... meetings held to discuss these proposals. As a further aid, an experimental banning of parking in accordance with the first- stage recommendations was made. The five spaces removed on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue provide, in conjunction with the new traffic signals, a free right turn at Waltham Street. The value of this change was immediately evident. Fourteen spaces removed on the north side of the Avenue were intended to test three things. Circulation improvement can be imperfectly tested because pavement markings were un- changed, and because the ultimate proposal calls for curb re- location to provide 5 feet of additional width. Despite this limitation, flow improvement was observed, although not capable of being statistically proven. Inconvenience caused customers can fairly well be evaluated by all who use the Center, so long as they keep in mind that the ultimate plan calls for improved rear parking. Impact on sales -134- can be tested least accurately of all, because of the short time period, snow, a missing building, and the lack of beauti- fication designed to put the "plus" into the situation. 1966 Action Article 52 in the 1966 Ap .`hal Town Meeting calls for an appropriation for beautification along Massachusetts Avenue at a total cost of $60,000, of which half should be covered by a federal grant. This article will provide an opport pity for explicit public expression on the broad issues involved in Avenue reconstruction. The precise location of 1966 public construction depends upon the speed with which private building changes are made. At this writing, the most probable opportunity for permanent con- struction in 1966 lies between Depot Square East . 'd Waltham Street. Accordingly, it is recon.'ended that in the above por- tion of Massachusetts Avenue, curbs be relocated to provide 60 feet of travelled way, increasing the space for moving vehicles from the present 38 feet to 46 feet. A row of Y t retehs otherplant � • � and carefully designed si.e •lk s Oft ' 3d-also be-constructed along thatport e Avenueif is ded an is ed at un•sh�ville� ls��ner�ti��lani3scaPiAgv�n front to meeting, p pont of the Cen- tral Block if private development makes that feasible. At this stage, relocation of five spaces from the south side of the Avenue for traffic improvement is reco x ;ended, a desirable step irrespective of ult' i,ate action on the north side. During this s• "e period, it is anticipated that the largest increments of private building anticipated for the Cen- ter for many years will be underway. Also being considered will be recoc ""endations for rezoning, development of parking north of the railroad, rationalization of parking between Clarke and' Muzzey Streets, initial steps in developing the loop road system, and other + alley circulation changes. Also being prepared during this period will be Lexington's long-range fi- nancial study, which should help place later Center proposals into a better-articulated town-wide set of guidelines. Post 1966 Actions As soon as off-street parking has been improved to allow it, the parking spaces on the north side of the Avenue in this same area would be relocated off-street, pe ;sitting the portion of the Avenue used for circulation, previously raised from 38 feet to 46 feet, to be further raised to 49 feet, the width ultimately required to meet circulation demands; and also • -r mitting widening the___south, si-d- 'alk Troia°its : _ ,int X1' ' -et to -135- 14 feet. This widenin makes possible development of ill-scat l.an scams nd a ni „ omg eve - a..." .t on the north • a - • • • • • su - • • . - "or tree • • • _ ree plant i.ng at hat location' is uad3 difficult' by at utality locionra ,, so hasn't been illus e ut.. iSfeas ;aie xf ae effort .i..s ma e ... ... Final implementation of this plan for Massachusetts Avenue involves continuation of the pedestrian promenade to the west as far as Meriam Street, and to the east as far as the town offices. Curb parking would be retained on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue, in front of the Post Office, and on side streets. Concurrent action will call for further off-street parking development, dependent upon the pace of commercial de- velopment, and for beautification efforts elsewhere in the Center; at Depot Square, and to the rear of commercial struc- tures. WHY SHOULD THIS BE DONE? Three basic goals were selected to guide the Lexington Center Plan: it to th e o Bent in the Center of an appropriate symbol to represent this unique commu- nny;...and service...for`nis-idents.._ Every-opt ".of---thesie basic goals is better served by the recommended development of Massachusetts Avenue than by its more conventional alternate. If the Center fails in its function of providing a success- ful environment for profitable enterprise, it will also fail in its symbolic and service roles, so fulfillment of this function is an absolute need. One of the fundamental issues involved is the question of the appropriate future commercial role of Lexing- ton Center: in the face of new shopping-center competition, should it develop towards a reliance on convenience goods sales, or should the emphasis be on specialt oods? This plan is predicated on latterairec ion. Lexington Center cannot imitate or directly compete with highway-oriented shopping centers, whether they be the projected Burlington colossus, or the Great Road convenience goods complex. Lexington Center must develop a role of its own, consistent with its locational and physical characteristics. Economic analyses and the judgement of a number of businessmen associated with this study point to a future for Lexington Center as a specialty center, with a role relative to the Burlington Center analagous in many ways to the role of Harvard Square relative to Downtown Boston, or of Andover relative to Lawrence and the North Shore Center. In enc e......smaller .,center swIrWa_ complementary tglact1044 concentrating onrelatvellow-volume highly special- izedgoods aimedata particular, rather than ma6s, '"l1 rvn -13G- The alternative; expanding convenience goods sales, could not support the existing rent structure of Lexington Center, let alone any higher level. The pattern of access and parking is not now well-suited for a convenience-goods center, and future traffic diversions will make the Center even less well- suited. To ,S. :cess,tull..r....,attxact spec CUStomers, a special en- istinctive Avenue is eh ein drawingr eatMWt of Massachusetts important step required. An attractive and en- vironment is such cus o omers and,...the_ storeswilLserve them. This judgement is reinforced by responses of merchants in similar businesses in the Center today. In a recent survey, shopping-goods merchants favored relocation of p• king off Massachusetts Avenue, 12-7. Service convenience for Lexington residents will be served by, in this way, encouraging location in Lexington of stores unique in the area, stores which might not exist anywhere in the region if the particular environ +ent of Lexington Center didn't exist, just as some of the enterprises succeeding in rvard Square couldn't exist anywhere in the region if the mutual attractiveness of that unique set of businesses weren't there. In merchandising as well as in physical terms, this is a bold proposal: to make Lexington Center serve more than j t Lexington; to make Lexington Center a regional facility com- plementary to Burlington, perhaps the object with Burlington of ' � dual-destination trips. Residents will be among the greatest beneficiaries, through having a distinctive range of merchandise locally available. qItg g * ,o a��,a d�..treatment og..the Center would give to Lexi on,��a_ c„ti' 'i.LI a symbol,.,rep -sent- a..of the co n nunity, fo t st • i nt,_.._p pacious,_soncerned with visual would be a symbol ..__ ..�,; h cares enough about amenity, and with of asymbhigh ��iuniunit, i;yiwhich e f out eXcel- lence to make the extra effort of attaining it. WHAT WO a BE *I EFFECT ON TRAFFIC? The Circulation Plan demonstrates in substantial detail that the proposed Avenue width, 56 feet, can adequately serve projected traffic needs for as long as can the conventional alternative (64 feet with an additional lane of parking), or until sometime after 1975. Following that, traffic diversion in addition to Worthen Road will be required if congestion is to be avoided, no matter which configuration is selected. -137- One (but not the only) major purpose in widening the Massa- chusetts Avenue right-of-way was to gain congestion relief. Either the proposed plan or its conventional alternative would serve that purpose well by insuring less congestion by 1975 than exists today. Few centers will be so well-served. WHAT ARE THE PARKING CONSEQUENCES? The Parking Plan report points out the need for major ex- pansion of parking within the central portion of the Center if the Center isn't to prosper at the periphery and deteriorate at the core, as many centers have. A net increase of about 290 spaces in required by 1975 to maintain the present floor area to parking spaces relationship. Loss of off-street spaces to provide the loop road, landscaped areas back of buildings, traffic improvement, and building sites will probably require not less than 100 replacement spaces by 1975, or a minimum de- mand for about 400 additional and replacement spaces. Parking relocation to make this plan workable would add 35 spaces to the demand, or less than 10%. The Parking Plan explores means of providing those spaces: it is entirely feasible for them to be developed in any of several alternative ways, whether the railroad right-of-way becomes available or not. Proximity of parking spaces to stores would inevitably be reduced by relocation of spaces into off-street facilities. The consequences of this depend upon the length of shopping trip services. A few seconds isn't critical to an hour's trip, but it is to a two-minute trip. Curb parking turnover was re- corded and analysed on a rainy Saturday, when pressure for con- venient location is highest. Through the middle of the day, only about 15% of the curb spaces were held by cars making trips shorter than 10 minutes, 33% by cars (including the above) making trips shorter than 20 minutes. For the rest, the degree of displacement required for the recommended plan should prove inconsequential. Careful design of meter time limits can in- sure that equally convenient spaces can be reserved for the relatively few quick turn-over spaces affected by parking re- location. In any event, shopping for the specialty goods in which the Center should concentrate, is certainly less dependent upon differences of a few seconds in access than upon differ- ences in visual environment. WHAT WILL THIS PLAN COST? The net cost of this or any town undertaking, is the an- nual excess of municipal costs occasioned by it over revenues accruing as a result of it. The cost side can be fairly well defined, but the revenue results are highly problematical. However, order of magnitude estimates can be made to illustrate the range of probability. -13U- Two independent cost estimates were prepared for the first stage work on Massachusetts Avenue, somewhat imprecise because detailed construction drawings have not been made. These es- timates were compared by EDA, and a single esti. .te produced, using the higher unit prices whenever they differed. These costs are for beautification, not road construction, and all should qualify oder the federal Urban Beautification Program. These estates do not include inevitable road construction costs, money for which was allocated in the 1965 street widen- ing appropriation. These are the added costs because of beauti- fication proposals (Table 1). These figures are comfortably high for use as budget es- t`l ates. For example, each tree has been esti. .ted to cost $400, which allows a fine tree. Smaller trees could be in- stalled for far less if necessary. Sidewalk paving is esti- mated to cost $1.10 per square foot, ass _.ing special treatment. An ordinary walk could be constructed for half that fig e. These costs come to about $175 per front foot of treatment in the area with double trees. At that k. .e rate, the entire M= sachusetts Avenue program would cost $220,000. Allowing an- other $80,000 for other areas in the Center, a total outlay of $300,000 is indicated for beautification only. This includes sidewalks, benches, plantings, supplementary lighting, trash receptacles, and associated_uti,l,i, ies and roadway costs (Table 2) . The federal Urban Beautification Program i being designed to aid j ; proj- s as his. *-e1imin> y review of this recommended plan with federal officials indicates that it will qualify for aid. Normally, grants will be for 50% of the in- crease in to. . expenditures for beautification above the base of an average of the previous two years' expendit es. Such ex- pendit es have fluctuated widely in Lexington, averaging about $50,000 per year in recent years, The size of the grant for Center beautification would depend upon the level of expendi- tures in other areas of Lexington for shade trees, playground improvements, and other eligible expendit es.. Given the in- centive of 50% aid, it seems likely that fut a expendit es for beautification will fail to exceed the average outlays of this year and last year, the base years, so it seems fair to ass ie 50% aid for the entire - .ount of Center beautification, or $125,000 over the ten-year period. Given the ex• ' ple of the first-stage improvements, we be- lieve that beautification will have broad support in the co!! u nity, and believe it is not .reasonable to expect private finan- cial support for some of the costs involved. This has been set at $25,000, well below amo . ts raised by merchants in other co.. 'ities for similar progr. ��,. This leaves $100,000 in mu- nicipal costs for the program, or $5,000 per year over a 20- year .ortization. -139- TABLE 1 CAPITAL COSTS, 1966 CENTER BEAUTIFICATION (From Depot Sq. East to w. crosswalk at Waltham Street, and Meriam Street to Depot Square.) Removal and Demolition $ 1,600 Construction 24,900 Furnishings 7,000 Planting 13,200 $51,700 Fees, contingency (15%) 7,800 TOTAL $59,500 Estimates by E.D.A. TABLE 2 CAPITAL COSTS, 1975 BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM (Massachusetts Ave. from town offices to the Green, Depot Sq., off-street parking areas) EXPENDITURES: Massachusetts Ave., Stage I $ 60,000 Massachusetts Ave., Stage II & III 160,000 Depot Square, parking areas 80,000 TOTAL $300,000 SOURCES OF INCOME: Federal grant (50%) $150,000 Private subscription 25,000 Tax levy 125,000 TOTAL $300,000 Assume municipal cost amortized in 20 years, tax levy cost $6,250 per year. -140- TABLE 3 A AL COSTS, 1975 BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM (Massachusetts Ave. from town office to the Green, Depot Sq., off-street parking areas) BASED ON 20-. } ,.R COST AMORTIZATION Annual M p;icipal Cost Parking Relocation $ 3,700 Beautification Capital Costs 6,300 Maintenance 5,000 Gross Annual Cost $15,000 Required offsetting assess- ment increase @ $50/$1000 A.V. = $300,000 in mid-year of period, or $ 30,000 per year growth If entire increase based on cotiercial development, re- quired floor area increase (CO $10 per s.f. A.V.) = 3,000 s.f. per year Sales increase @ $50/s.f. floor area = $150,000 per year If entire increase based on residential development @ 200 dwellings per year, re- quired average value increase = $150 per dwelling unit -141- The annual cost of the beautification program will be the imputed cost of parking relocation (the highest "deficit" of new parking, plus lost meter revenues), plus the capital cost of the improvements, plus maintenance costs (extra snow removal costs, plant care) . These are estimated to total $15,000 per year over the 20-year period (Table 3) , assuming a pay-as-you-go program. If this project is to be self-sustaining, it must stimu- late assessment growth which would not otherwise have occurred. If the average tax rate over the twenty-year period is estimated at $50/$1000 assessed valuation, by the middle year of the twenty-year period assessments would have to have grown $300,000 above what they would otherwise have been for increased tax in- come to equal municipal costs (before that year added income would be less than costs, after that year more than costs) . On an annual basis, this is a growth of $30,000 in assessments above what would otherwise obtain (assessments increased $4,400,000 townwide during 1964), For the entire growth to be based 'on commercial property, this would mean adding about $150,000 per year to the sales level of the Center because of the beautification. This is just over 1/3 the projected potential rate of growth for the Center. Given the judgement that the beautification program will ma- terially boost the Center, it is not unreasonable to attribute 1/3 of its growth to this program. An example of the commer- cial impact of beautification is analysed in a current planning publicationl. Atchison, Kansas, a city of 15,000 population, invested $300,000 in a landscaped mall. Within a year of open- ing in late 1963, retail sales had increased 20 percent, ten new firms had located there, and tax returns already exceeded costs. Numerous other cases could be cited, though few so dramatically sharp in returns. On the other hand, the impact of Center beautification will be town-wide, enhancing property values throughout the commu- nity. In part because Lexington spends generously on quality schools, home builders in Lexington can and do successfully aim for a quality home market. Similarly, a beautiful Center should help them sell better quality homes than would otherwise be pos- sible. Conversely, depressed conditions in the Center would make it harder to sell to a high-price market, causing the average value of new homes to drop. If beautification in Lexington Center influences home- builders to the extent that the average assessed value of the homes they build is increased $150 obove what it would otherwise have been, the difference in taxes on those homes alone (ignoring the subtler tax impact on existing structures) would cover the cost of this program. 1Housing and Home Finance Agency, "Profile of a City -- Atchison, Kansas" Urban Renewal Notes, Sept.-Oct. 1965. -14'2- No one can prove whether either or both of these impacts will be felt. Probably the greater impact will be on values outside of the Center, since much of the growth of the Center is largely assured in any event (and the tax benefit of the growth has already largely been "cla' red" to offset widening costs) . Our professional judgement, based on improvement pro- grams in other co .=unities as well as the spending and assess- ment growth history of Lexington itself, is that tax returns attributable to this beautification will easily exceed costs even within the first decade. IS THIS WHAT THE TOWN MEETING ASKED FOR? When the March, 1965 town meeting appropriated $250,000 to widen the Massachusetts Avenue right-of-way, and $13,000 for planning studies, did it intend results such as are now recom- mended? Perusal of the materials used to influence that meet- ing suggests that this was exactly the intent, and that any- thing less would not be carrying out their directions. There were _,t. • • c_int.entions in the_'widening; one to imjproiecirculat . nr the--other. to improve esthetics. The latter may well ha,y' . - - • •e._doL1inant motive. ...,.In a statement advo 'eating the widening, the Board of Selectmen were quoted, "The condition of the structures occupied by the retail trade, the circulation pattern around Lexington Center, the inadequatM parking and -- above pearance o; hefacilities Qt ., aupropriate1y, reflect all the undistinguished alp, tae heeds, the_......taste-and the--general.,,„a„ ..iauuene of the town s populat ion.. Not only is._the widening of pa:.�. ave. essen t MU - to-IT� providesimprOveient the long-awaited occasionf TVICi n fortredn in ping Centex,,, redeveloping the coniercial core with the guidance of an overall design c1ncept lending unity and distinction to the business district.” The lead editorial in the Minute-Man stated "This project would mean to the town a Massachusetts ave. of equal width throughout the Center and the removal of a bottle neck which now sn• °ls traffic and which if allowed to continue in the years to come would probably mean almost paralysis during peak hours of traffic. More important than this is that it would mean the tearing down of the two oldest and most unattractive business structures in the Center and their replacement by larger, much more attractive and considerably more valuable modern business structures. 1Lexington Minute-M. ' , March 4, 1965, pg 1 et seq. -143-