Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Summary Report, A Plan for Lexington Center, 1996
SUMMARY R E PORT frierr r.g +4;?h4cv �i`Wiz. F,u�i h ,- ti a M. r�.e.v s f a.tr. 'mac 'S` _ ;-... } K �� ..t 3' , n ... r .. e 4a. a tr"A .'f J hf 73L ��ta 1r ,W s 1 11 d r�, . � � - t at '> '4 . aq��.�5 m A PLAN FOR LEXINGTON CENTER SUMMARY REPORT ON A PLAN FOR LEXINGTONCENTER prepared for the LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD and the TOWN COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE REVITALIZATION OF LEXINGTON CENTER LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN 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 Foyle Irving H Mabee Roland B Greeley George C Sheldon Natalie H Riffin TOWN COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE REVITALIZATION OF LEXINGTON 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 Committee) 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 ESTIMATES 1985 ��'‘Ci SPLS WR.R.. WITH R.R. EXPLICIT PROP 1966 1968 PROPOSALSPOL pROp0S41.s 1905 ESTIMATES 1(9085 R.R. R.R. The goals of development in the Center must include business profit- ability, but also must go beyond that Two equally important goals are ser- vice to residents and the development of the Center as an appropriate symbol 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 The 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 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- quality of the goods being sold A dramatically landscaped promenade linking the Green, the commercial Center, and the civic area is proposed as a major component in developing this environment, to be complemented with careful guid- ance of new architectural development, and with development of pedestrian areas linking parking and commercial structures The Plan recommendations are that a staged program for landscaped beauti- fication in the Center be undertaken; that the Massachusetts Avenue widening be used only in part for traffic, freeing the rest for pedestrians; that the present compact nature of the Center be maintained through use of multi-level parking structures where necessary; that parking access be improved through development of a loop-road system; and that building design be guided through agreement on a Visual Design Plan, dealing with the major elements of design, rather than with "style" Each of these recommendations is a major departure from what most small commercial areas are doing These directions are recom- mended in the belief that only bold steps can rescue the Center from easy mediocrity, and that mediocrity is inadequate functionally or symbolically for a community of Lexington's aspirations and heritage Pages 3 and 4 are alternative illustrations of what might result by 1975 if the recommended public actions to 1968 and policies beyond that are fol- lowed Since these illustrations combine recommendation and projection, many other alternatives could also be shown, illustrating different private re- sponses to these public efforts, and different ways of implementing the sug- gested public policies on circulation and parking The explicit recommenda- tions and policies are illustrated through drawings on pages 7, 9, 11, 12, 18 and 22 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1968 1975 1985 PROPOSALS POLICIES EXPECTATIONS CIRCULATION 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 PARKING Pave lot N of railroad Maintain 3z 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 ACTIVITY Encourage specialty sales Expand commercial area Nearby apartment Expand commercial area development BEAUTIFICATION Execute 1st stage promenade Complete Center beautifi- Beautification norm Execute 2nd stage improve cation municipal function DESIGN 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 -2- a --_^�L p I. �.u.a.+m / �, w d ,Fa• a <. -t„- e ry, t. tF y�4 .011%.;:- . " ,`, ■ „y i ' it *.v lam ' . �+'.y . w eM/�'n. E II -` -1,M _'�nd�e - ..,u�+„$ai.. .' .x ," .w, }. TEL.r4G'> ip-, : - ' '9 �yc ' E��i ef am- ' ate ) d f 11 li<M1� 1 e�• ° • z {,,., r`mei ` 7..--_.,.. .±:-'----- �. !li r '' y Ij . Jl' uAiR7T li1?ftITIT1- ^a RIII1-10 , ` .� t� 1 r�tt" _ ... - �I 9I I ➢" .. .._ r - ;-s'-' i ,.® ?:t a ry7 F 141 n ° e ---4:11:44:'''''.A 4,.... ,.. i �❑ O 1.7Q V F mr Y c-vsrY� -_.uYv _ fK "j?4 � — 1�4 TI 1' - 53 - ml -- ❑ 0 �,m:l 7. L rr aR,Xi fifMw� F fid .0slo i ' ; t Wit er B h7( .� 1^ yl •h M 4 j , 4 � q� v. 1 Ill—li '',.- ... rii � � °. �+ .., til�-..c 1 h'�g,r� I C�\\\\� �� = ® �1IIII11� 111®11119 '4 m �,..., j IwC\AE\a�7r `,+. y _ .�-vs _ - �I� rt -ta ®� �TI IIII�UIRI`I�1116�_= ° ""=` ■ r'fi g ,,, 1 riff? r J a I�R� ' � � PA� - � z, i ■ „am ,,r.,. ! ''" - _i t., ,;9'- fi .":7C1,:77;"2*'", r'M , �,+ cL �c 9-:---;.:T.: A- 9 "� 1 �1 Im �� 'Xl� ,, Y`� , .� 1 � i� _ a,--la?' -,...,-1/44,1041�t...._1. �p( _ E 5 5 I 4,. 47 - 4S`r _ 4 F 0 _,-;.4-..e-411.--71. .. �� t1 � 1,:-... I 1 11 1111111111:1-In ■ � --._:fl � � I ry III .x VY �� � � � �-K ,. , , ' �• � ab@ ii � I � „moi . 1,• :,.'-'.:;. .--2.:-.7.;-- a SAM i, __ ? r• J t, ■ 3 :-a ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN ,�,��� .� r �� ; P�ilw 111k*.- �� � � t "i:: � 1WITH RAILROAD e.��yep0,,-,...r7-",_, t y,*.— 1 m` x Tr I( �+.� - 1 _ 1 'r - = LEXINGTON CENTER y ..�. .� f g '-- --0� -,C SE Y y SYNDICS PREPARED PUN TXE LEXINGTON PLANNING ROARS ANO THE LEXINGTON CENTER Y 1 COMMITTEE BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOOCIATES INC NO TON. MAESACXOSETTS S j ( REONANS%I FALCONEN STEIN ARCHITECTS REENFIELD.MASSAtl1YSETTS Er‘,, A., *4 it----1 '''y. r i"E4`/ Y .P ,v;�hi�. 1 l.• f. ' .mnr ,, ,e.0 '�`x ` 3 r + ia`' ` n: Y� ' .,� M1 n:� 5 .? [MiY )7 , -,r,‘-, ♦y Y ' S. .` ' 4 `x F" . + q }y§, ( 5 Y ,4 *n 2'A-. y 2L 1 "k .( , I5'Y• r3�p#"',,,d'.c .� '�' ,i� t�r' "F a C •4 "*i� .. 'i.„ �„o .A '+:' `4 - ;3' ( F '. 'x tr r..�u y� w y�irApv a �`.tl. ! "441,-.n3',. Y. .. �r `i'sa'tv i ...-,x,....: ikeY � 1 „r. s�:, M �� !,i' s' �,M& iJFAZA `,t"'>�r'"s 1'` s'u, a aM » s;r d .. `t r���y�.�.-� t >�d744 55, i3xF.. `l��7� (�� is a�.r v. 'ufry� Y rµ'a."` �a}� :�", {y`� n"�:,.x a � ''�''t. r i ''fit ,,,,,,,k,„,,,t. e a z s 4 a a_ ,i,; �lk1 _1�i-sLik$ , , } -s �.. >f te'", � ¢f c `>•s`,' lik t ` ' �411.,,,..*,-, r ( S s w r r �*t' ' ,' y� �:. a s { � I�'r 1. .-I.M PC er"r {!M1 xiCd +fis'5n x- art A F G <�_..y' �y3yy ��� { _ � �pry� � ���iJJ eM� .n. ���` ��,�ti���1'da� �'�c��,„�'1�Sn.�- „�" k .a+ w • ....4.� `"{ µ ,- III: C� 1 f 1'f(�it l r.,. .5„., � r�, ,�,,d j..t �„ ` y h l',1.:-,;',"."=":.4::::�' ri{ n ' re3f4 �' 4 in R 111 ' i �� 3 r "+sri" Bu •„„.k1 r ,7 ��" .,r t ^ 4t`YL`' . r 9 u+ f% w }�i` "'~;�,.<y� ex,x� "� �Yr� d,,: �3� a��„ �t; c irc K 4h* 1 s ..wiiii” "'+z xk 4;r ft s, ". ate. � a5�r44,,,,,,,,4*,'w.a � ''1S^, a"_ tY'", c r �+ ( '3�ilik y'�°s` ,ISM . .Zs, "41ti,:',..,-2.-1.,,.....;,5,' x 1R a :.'r 1 � � b�' L...::.;6•:- wee .. *t y. ,' sn fM sw nM . ,..c...4 7 ,� C. '{'»''it-'�'1. ".' ° sem..�f. w 'r,...wn+we.+ �! "!^ .wew w. »��"n' t,.# at- � ,�".w,.z xr �• I a r ' A. has 4`, a x: i. r a �.,.S ..t : 2 t�SxiRvAS F� 1,,,f.;1/4. I +. „,3{ > m.,, '� rr I �`;sit + '� !Y .14i ar PP ��* � Y Can; ti jj : ' > kfrsfr t�l� T'�'�it .. xZ s'k )'� Ys: R.4� r ` . a aw t . . y.Y s • '^ b Pri yr ' "`,- 0.4.-C4!,...'„,...,_ r ` r .1' "+,r`�.. c �` x a i( 'zfia t, g r „33 RF { 'f :.w r( v.. '43?-a 'L ,, it :Y ;, , x.a y.:.'{"f e ./25i5 4'h, '0:1* i- r �.�r t*;' ' ; t.:!, m4641,4114 .%, �vr" * 3" z».,s ..q r-ilrc r #nye c.r -s(- R n- „ r. a i w. Ml''''.5 . o A : - t S9 nPok3'l "h d a*m f '.. z "'""--41-,c,.5' 9 i mai ,Ti ` a. AJ4,4 Y e A� ` I,N, .i I l'?FI 9k etc: ''r dx (' .,, �} _ v. # ('v4xsj •T. zr.i j6'^ h� s`' rig 'h 'e' .m k ' �' -' ^:i.a''_ rd`z' .?'s+Qh:` Via. da`r"z. ta. dux. .,i " '...Ss .ws*>:, `'' `' *x. i ..,,� tv. "f. `2 iw i', b rfitt5 '=,y�k�i ,kf,.h,3 " od, F B £�a''i 9"4t P-�V +F �Q r zu, • .. i dyCy�+f,"�, � , *X.., i ,. r a r,�rs24'� ,... t '9' +s'7 *,d s"K�7 u`a 4'tss '^'k� c pr ti ri+`k x3 -1 5C "`". a 'zY. i`s'SY" ""9. `. .. N- ;�� + :; � ,4' `'. � � •... :l"�`ttvz,- t r a 'hs :4 >.a_.. a. .(r:; ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL - 1975 WITHOUT RAILROAD ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT 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 a mixed 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- 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 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, 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- PURCHASES BY RESIDENTS OF LEXINGTON MARKET AREA 80 _. 7 0 dl SON II TOTAL PURCHASES BY �VE��-ANG LEXINGTON RESIDENTS ‘N ES 60 I PV�Gt` S ' (1111111 c 50 -J PURCHASES IN BOSTON, J 0 OTHER SHOPPING CENTERS, LEXINGTON - OUTSIDE OF CENTER, 0 40 ANC OTHER SUBURBS Cl, z 0 J 30" TOTAL SALES IN LEXINGTON 20 SALES TO PARK TOURISTS PURCHASES IN LEXINGTON CENTER 0 1963 19 67 1971 1975 YEAR -6- _ r1 1J 1, I,r tl, 1 11 U ‘Lk-,\ .ice j� I I I l r--______T-- 1 101 J 1 1 nIJI J� ol, a. la Q_�, ❑I o� fl 4 \ B--- '---_ F •AvAikvc% ,.,.7,<!,.!,4N,N,,...,,,,.:„*„.•::..?r,:zt:*-•:,......................................... r;H4.N..,4,,,: S a F T 9m MR � ����� �% �• � � } I \ x >a'b,.!r.<x,> L. P4� : w`Ls. ,N v, I L. *: I.It .'3z' ^P s I 1 AVENUE AVENUE0 I N. 0. ph 4PBSPGHDEETT3 E.. �F .. jvyyv 3 ALNU ETT v�� " I /❑ ❑ I [5 It 1 �N!`! },K, i� h, "�y�IT X.a. �L P. �. ,yy��{ � I v\ � L4i 'Y G :'`x. 'tY '^."'n ""k '�„M"•,a�"„`�"'t,paaa. ,•k ;•y Z.N ,4: . / I� / I i:`• ' 4.'Y tik M ikEOPX, k. t MM k% '` I, : z ��.�" F ^ P..,. 1v 10 1 A a C7 �❑ L�I ( Stt0 \W /� \\ \ a RPYMD„D STREET ;: 1 � z=PROPOSED ZONING 0. ( .�, _ :'. ;; "_ ,1, 'PROPOSED Ci(PROPOSED 0 2 .E.�. 1. :.'.Q}. ”' e -I f :. ...... Ilk" -‘4';'H O:. / PRESENT C-2 {i;y` a r, DSESi C � jrilQ l� UI LEXINGTON CENTER O; STpEET v // \ STUDIES PREPARED FOP TME LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD AND TIE LEXINGTON CENTER STREET FOpEST COMMITTEE BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIPTNFIELD BOSTON. SETTS MUBETT3 a/ I EDNPPSNIFALCONER STEIX� PPLXITEETG�WEEXFIELO�M PCMUSEiiS f----1----Q j� �7i I r \ q1Cn 1• O� \ _ 1 1 CIRCULATION 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 through Population growth, growth in auto usage, and shifts in employment and shopping locations will increase present volumes in the Center despite ef- forts such as Worthen Road, but will not increase volumes in the next decade 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- 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 volumes 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 the 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 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 requirewidening by about 10 feet at their narrowest point in order to match the theoretical ca- pacity of the Waltham Street intersection 3) Diversion of as much traffic as possible from the central portion of Massachusetts Avenue A loop road 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 major 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 major 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, making its completion dependent upon fortunate opportunity, adroit detail design, or late stage programming 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- F RA ? 2 i A °V 9 9T O 4Tf T4DN t 4 • 2 W sTRtCt t Ba P X ? i Y O p C I- = A twA a r 4 c a Y r 4Pa� A D '/ MALTERNATE BYPASS ORO... POALTERNATE BYPASS BYPASSs4 c- pa - -c P Q1(� RAILROAD t2 YY N v J t0 C 40. Y J . A 2 : aN0 MA ME WAY i $ G0140N 6 ______H:. . SP a' ,� Cd C.. NUBCTLt0pE ••WWC h • • h Y • • • rW �u hC 4 f --\ 4 If NAA-' Il Fa ING\ROOK.BAh I Y RAYMOND BT. 1- 1/ l 4J a 3 I J } D W N l fro N Rt.,. F A-ri n r ,24 b CIRCULATION PLAN /SIDEWALK WIDENED LEXINGTON CENTER STUDIES %STREET WIDENED PARKING gEM0VE0 500 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS _ Zoo •oo BEDNARSKI-FALCONER•STEIN,ARCHITECTS, GREENFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS SCALE IN FEET THE PROMENADE A 100 foot right-of-way on Massachusetts Avenue most of the way through the Center (90 feet at the Central Block) has been assured by recent town meet- ing actions Of this, 56 feet will be required by 1975 for moving traffic and 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- cretionary, for use either as on-street parking space, or to provide an extra- ordinary pedestrian promenade It is recommended that four feet of this discretionary space be used to widen the sidewalks on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue, enough to permit planting boxes and other pedestrian amenities (tree planting might require major utility relocation) , as well as freer movement The remaining eight feet of discretionary space should be used for a deeply landscaped pedestrian promenade on the north side of the Avenue, with a double row of trees, smaller plantings, 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 of movement where one can pleasureably pause This powerful element would help give a distinctive character to Lexington Center, helping differentiate it from the multitude of commercial areas now similar in appearance but representing communities far different in character and heritage The new buildings replacing the Hunt and Central blocks will be one story, 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, 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 community 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 the promenade, parking can be retained on both sides of the Avenue, with the north-side parking lane to be removed when replacement off-street parking has been developed The space gained would then be divided 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 Urban Beauti- fication Program 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 $15,000 annually Beautification of Massachusetts Avenue is but one component in a proposed program which would include efforts in Depot Square, in and between parking areas, and in outlying commercial centers as well, following a careful analysis of their needs -10- A ., !: 1 A Fn zyy't • !i (N / w- :rti i 1 I' o �v �!s[ 7 ., 5 Ii� et t a,7s!_ J TI id- -i'I , S 1-.1 4l A � - tt•it • . 1 ._.c __NG-w s.w*'e- r . - : i ._�iwr c ^l f->Zl' ,,,s v'It,; NORTH SIDE OF MASSACHUSETTS -L I et a C Leg - -ri Ir LA a?, wa d m , . , i i • • 4arn. 141;4 140 l'is 1:1 le "r ' \ ,:A - `illi IS --—--"--.' .,' .1.1442&.:: R ,_ , , , .,,, el 4 1 '' HI .' .. j' :''; A& &_, . <<, LL @Y ;z 3 , -.. ,p 2€La.. 1 id:nll NI? _���' i�1. � V :: 12;,`�I ifigi f"^"ms 's �a S��-ri- -i,.-:"- t`�.r'ai1' '- -r---4-F-7.7,14" , ,', u . 2 ` 1,fw �i is r r` S 1 ,L I ,. . I � 1 .i 1 1 1 r; �T iI ' 1 { i ;„ :i 1' 1 :cy: I' 1 '. 1 \ F ..,"....,�„max. .. .. rt EL s \ a 10 0 10 20 30 90F- i N L SCALE IN FEET0 c n 8 MASSACHUSETTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNERS F -- D I '41' u o � w 3yp N i a .'sem . 'Ftir o f.' L ' 1L « - ; - ° Y�it'=' AVENUE , - ELEVATION i I i '. a i JAY Sit A' AVIV a :' _ R.. ,J. ail I, Yc lAWIrale ell -T an • CJI IN-IF Ei ,III allot' alik�7F A rx y Q5- L I wu. «4�z-:.• t r �n .aim �����`° E ���' 1-----[ f� ,i�. drii.ig i If _ Y :L. -v ' ' �/I I , 1s[ .I V ! 1I: - NT:J ut Y N I fG J I AVE . PROMENADE BEDNARSKI-FALCONER-STEIN, ARCHITECTS -12- I I II SSG = I I c. 14 1 i ; r— I I l °` ;1/ ,�1_ Crn, Ctrs 4 . , 'ia 1y F ,„, 146 MlOkbiti, 'gilt "1'";'e > l; �R E Diu ,IN, Ao �F��$irlkg p /!:1b Arc- Ani inn ��*s ,- LWS ."1g , '.. -0' t_FIS, I 11L I. I .I Z i 7 4. i1. l EEEET1I1JIiLTEE1i _ iL J 1 -1 o, INTERIM STAGE . : I MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE m I` 10 70 40 0 ` �� }GALE m rI I 11 !, I II rit, . ; 4 °ems I il m II Iil ii 1 II I � w yfi ' i 1E�r ' I Li-�t vB .sn ` E� AulJE 7 �cy (g �__ W y� E _ �,i,,, 0 E Y� ` S. . , .r4r .: Cy -gyp y i a c EI''- -1--___._,...,e"e. e._ I-I p�e� [-I Li- — — — --, -- — e�.e>.e e. _ 1 l —. —.— Li —I IIfs I— 3_ if _C_ — I _I 1 Ii L i r .os -N1ii:u - tg - E I oC ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT MASSnCIAISETTS AVENUE ` AESLE EET 1 1 I I MASSACHUSETTS AVE. AT HUNT BLOCK al--aba nall• II I 10 I I6' I 1' 1 10' I 91' I 9' EXISTING (1964) allaillm.R1 rin 91, Wa. iii W.: 7' I I?' I 11' I H. 111 1 12' I 7' I tI in I fio' I 30' J INTERIM cc--t‘'\ at . a es .r,; I i it. IT' I 12' 12' MI 12' (2' 30' ULTIMATE MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE CROSS - SECT IONS —14— f' 1 A _,,Ar• \ , I '')• i A 1 I ‘ i‘,,,k L.K , ``--;<-1<-. • `--.- ,., ../v‘', 7,-.,/.- S-- ' \i"\- r A _ A , . ' , - • ", if. -- -1";-I j'-'-trl '' , --- t l---"I'rk tWtiasAil,,' -• ) tt,-' 1' '</ --1- tt . A ITN t'. 1. 1.11,0, i i - 4' --il r * 1,' 1 '..,' •,C.--iiibA040.grafie ''T-d-1. :-....r-,..-- . ",04,1F-p c..X,, 1 114- 11.„. ^:.‘rx •x ,,,.,,.1: .1,_-ft?' . .1___ - 5--,.." ‘. \ -,-J„ ts- . eilirst...a, , 'Yr: ; . , --.. 4- cr .4. , „, I , 6 4 ree (1:4-7: , ., \ 7 ' '""--tr t I Ic'4-:' 46"...- \`.1k '27 ‘-`16-16 Iffr iv :' / 114,..t? v- .e.ti• `..! -,-.. fr 4 tilir - ,\, A- iy-.1 2,--1 ----%r"r‘'-/I-e_' .,4;,,i! _,5.1...) ', 11 1'4'1/4171,..S3 2 r.,A isrpl.'it,--V:*-,:•.". .,t).t ,tit.:‘ S' ' - , 1 t'Itts‘ Rift ..- -.< -45:7:2.--t-In:tr,,-17 i .21,-1 + Ili? -i''',4iti7 / . -i ii0160.1"W.5Crilitktili, i r ttti/A# — t- t-C— - I _. - v \--,.. ". i pi , 1,1P‘;,,, ,4- .,=' \ci) tr.::::5-.2'.441c1W-SCIsi 44,t, 4::1 0.4,':''''.alen:: :1-: •-'11, ' m'a—: 11 likrieW...,1 1.!•eft 1 I 4,2,I... - 6.e,6"-t I- 0, ilk\ ' ' 0114 - -21/ i ‘ l .irk,, 41/4.se 4- 1,.. a t ,.------Xce. Talc- , .e,irk..,„, :ef---.. '4a NO a. . "Atite I ."-if • ' , ,,,:"'";'--- -- -- :=2 ui .a..,.. t. rp11:411'.. e, ' T 1! .1 :7'114 +A V ti 'I.0 etc ' ., lilt.. . 1 " ..iig,^,airt:i I aiM II: 1' iiitni Ell alf.infilrli. ,-,„)1!4 le% (,,' .16,1„IP.A' 111, ',,' c,,4 *,,,,. .r.'? _:,-1-7,,,, , 1 I j2 11- 1.11R`t!'W1 ,r lc):„.51,141,1,1, HI* Ill, tali i, 17;lti-Itl,,t 1141 r? VI.117 '2;:::. filli 1 Lr -"- 11 4 'd: di lit -T1-114 '1 1101 1.4. I ket.tik GI c, -rb 1 '1 Rilieif .i1;14,,,i -go. 6; A,'.P iik . trL,is '' q -iitetaori„,„: tar, 41Jc , i .ii. ,, . i ti - . , „ i HI, . -r. . •,ii f A'',--- ii? Off '.;.. iilAillinr. I' iiri- ' sail ki 4 --- 'S4 41,-'it' -, iilj!- ,,,, ;1.1iii ; Ili ,_w',Pi!i• 'cs '6 J:i 1 , -.''' I ' • -', . Alb 1 ' : r-ti•-• ,'-'• .,-, ,, _.......6011,1 121''f IF.ti'th!c..b.Tr 11 • [,ikt,'''',-- ' ir _„4,1,---'11- LI •„ .a i 151A1 i" , isel- -44•OPq,P A is" +-SASICAla', Al`"Airt •1) Al LiArAlTtill°, i i:CI 1 tiVnilig it:1€12 gifil; ''.111 --7:411-A-1;- ilTi: ' - -1 1 -E.' 1 -l-- '4-it 3 I -dirt li-11441SIM MOS-isiir 0 t'14-27triaglee:7-_ aitZ,t--ify--- _I ii i I1 t\ 1VV" ?.:0 I t r .•,010,. wrii.. - 134iltrisa--"rertr-----,..- , .a,...,‘ y., I . . -• 1 :1,•e”1\*"a -27":""PLO , ISA464 *A;;;;-....-.---4--„ve,-.-3---7-=-7:: -,, --, - 11 ' 41' _ rt i i lil ...: . N ‘L.. 1 t to IA t T y Fi[ ceri:,- I Rendering by George Conley PROMENADE VIEW TOWARDS GREEN 1 1 PARK I NG There are about 3i parking spaces available in the Center to service every 1,000 square feet of commercial floor space In Belmont Center, there are 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet; in Burlington, the ratio will approach 9 per 1,000 square feet In hard-hit Woburn, the ratio is 2 1000 It is conserva- tive to say that in the future, at least the present parking/floor space re- lationship must be maintained to keep Lexington Center competitively conven- ient 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 immediate abut- tors, and zoning change is proposed to ensure that the responsibility is ob- served In the heart of the Center, however, parking is a public function, since each space is of general utility, serving many destinations Within the area of public responsibility, there are nearly 1,000 parking spaces today, half of them publicly provided Programmed 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 construction and by the proposed Massachusetts Avenue program Municipally-owned space north of the railroad should be paved and have both auto and pedestrian access improved as a first step The chaos of pri- vate lots between Clarke and Muzzey Streets should be rationalized by munici- pal 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- opment at great distance from the Avenue (few today will walk more than 500 feet 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 in 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 upon 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- stantial, as high as $1500 per space in a parking structure At $0 05 per hour, customers would pay about half the net cost of the proposed parking prp- gram over a 20-year period The resultant annual subsidy of $20-$40 per space can perhaps be justified in terms of tax return on commercial structures and in terms of better service for residents, but need not be An increase in meter rates to $0 10 per hour would provide income sufficient to cover all costs of the parking program, with no burden on the tax rate, and with negli- gible effect on customer willingness to use the Center Parking turnover rates indicate needs for the various types of parking ip 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- utes 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- chants and their employees A two-hour limit for the bulk of spaces would make them most useful for the type of trade being encouraged -16- PARKING- FLOOR SPACE RELATIONSHIP PARKING TURNOVER - MASSACHUSETTS AVE w 100 y}{} 22000 90 I�4,, •: : :. : :Lt: i:• —• f leoo ? 5 METER HOGS _. ci o 160n ? P w a�. / a 70 — ¢ 'P m CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE w TURNOVER 1400 ,�? 4;Q? 0 O G\ Ay I PROJECTED Y 6^ / Jr- en FLOIOR SPA E ¢ cQ a 120C ow v.J�� LE`IEL,I97f Cl. 5^ 1 a ��P P��� o / BASIC SHOPPERS (0 1000 vy ?oy� 40 O `p° F#%� %.__PRESENT SITUATIO : z / w J 4 U Z G4i A 3C Y 600 yQp 00�� a CC to i 0 / 1: Q G 0_ `,yQP I 20GOO Aft' / o o ERRANDS u. cr 10' 20' 30' 4d 50 I HR. 6 HRS. W 200 m MINUTES f 7 Z 0 SOURCE 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 E.DA. FIELD SURVEYS, JUNE II,1965, NOV. 2, 1965 a NOV. 20, 1965 APPLICABLE DURING DAYTIME SHOPPING HOURS COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE SOURCE EDA ANALYSIS 1 i Di cil - \/ -L f-f 1 11 1 --- ,..ee e, _ • •••'°, :..il.k .MS''.-Litir._2, 1.1- ---:laii'll'irif".;"7" B ce\„ 2 , A1 :7M IIII I�INNI s 3. PIIIIIIICI ❑ / agPf ,.pIIIII�Nllryf .••°�DT❑y4 ', • 1 \ — III _J: yI� 0 LQ ,o-1 _. . WTD X AVENUE AyE„UE / ELI MASSACHUSETTS] ATI i QIU rip , ( iLLI____LdilMASSACHUSETTS 1' \n W ❑1 ❑ I P J/--�,� q -� v--� V 17 �� \ v v a —"T Ell I EI -- 7 . \� `�-1.T❑ I3 ID fI II 'j C \\C) f IQ '! I VINEBRYO„ 1�❑� ROAR TaLT j --.�� ❑ RAYMOND Id IGEEn �' � __ 1-�.cl. on � / PUBLIC ACTIONS Irk IOID -- —.—.? // PARKING �o . —1p,____-- II I / e EXISTING SPACES TO REMAIN \\�V_//�\\ I I _— J II /// 16111110 EXISTING SPACES REMOVED 1966-67 ✓V I —�—_— ❑ .Q-- / ci ,,;PROPOSED MUNICIPAL LOT L-1-- ,___.a.---\73; — �// / r-PROPOSED MUNICIPAL STRUCTURE Eli I /NFFT J_ CURB SPACES TO REMAIN 0 I P� I ❑ 111 1 t---co I ❑ y \ ' CURB SPACES TO BE REMOVED ILLI/ LII rY,1 V V. LEXINGTON CENTER STREET StREET / STUDIES PREPARED FOR THE LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD AND THE LEXINGTON CENTER I � FOREST / \ NT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE ELASSOCIATES. BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS BEOHARSXFALCONER•STEEIXARCHITECTS,GREENFIELD, ASSAMVSET !-• i ------ AJ i0 ❑ � \ /✓ c) \\ ENFC- CM lord 5 I I ini n li A4 / = =_ /2t' , ff 2-2 rl � �{91;fp . vj bi „ ° tri. IA', s ,_ Ife $ rj,,,. i.ihwei.„ ,. : :,57.01,t„,;. it,4„4:4 itoitikl____** ELJFIL__ ______,__,::, it , ,I. , : ..bs,'w,,.; I,..29, -eaa. ,-,a, en k ; --..-3,- • -17—_,.----__ ,--r-:::: it - ,3 , , tit,d • a . a , rl{ i tib- ;` I — ----_<--. ° _ uo2TI-I EI-JD TOWARD Mk544,0IaU5ETT5 AVcIJU6 L0014'1146 WCST /I - : T v �S/,'r.41: .' -JJ tea( 1 f .fpGQE'_ !t_4(:%.‘1.If I-. Y= 1 'lit ku*!;--cr=?, ' !Ili ki if i t, p,�. • �' t • F 1.1f11 ,?, --. $ yP aI-it‘,..,f t :�s-11L-77,T4' A + EI DV tif� , L. — EAST SL E _ TEZ . W . _ 721/7- 1 / - LooKILfCa o@ (OTIJ -ai1 E a / \ PA2V!UO 1RUCTURE MTA QELATED COUQTS LEXIIJGTON , IvAASSACBUnETTi ECOUOMIC DEVELOPA;U? 4.ssociAta9 - PIAVIJER$ I 3FoL!AR91-c - PALCOIJE1:t-S7E!IJ - A2CLII•RC7Fe -19- (tc:\t-11-- 1—Eir$ elL" 117-" T 7-16: --i1) J.- L MDIIEY MEET WillHAM SIRE[i GARAGE CROSS-SECTION LOOKING NORTH TOWARD MASS. AVE. N 0 at 66[1 :-M--- F to i �.I!! II -1tF,�1rs -11 11 M<SSACMEii5 AVENUE LOOP ROAD u+y_L GARAGE CROSS - SECTION LOOKING WEST TOWARD MUZZEY STREET DESIGN GUIDANCE 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 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 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- propriately 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 Zoning controls some of these characteristics For 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 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 Districts 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 -21- ° O oO,o,° ❑ p ° ❑ u °O 00 00 O °0 p0°o oo 0° ° ° 0 °°❑❑°°Op 0 0 0 000°00oOp0 O 0° 0 °0 0 O o ❑ ❑❑❑❑ ❑ ° o °° pp00 • o=O • 1 °° ° 0 ❑• O0,o.O O° 0 0 ° i°❑° ❑ ❑ ❑❑ o ❑ Op�O O� 'O❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑e .O ❑ ' ! OHO S llik 0'O w ❑ p 01. i ❑o°o° ° °R°poo per; 't. / op❑o'ep ip❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑ �• , 0 e %\ i.st%:0 i \ ❑ p0 , ° °`; O N i L. O ,� 0_0 ' o°� .0 0 p i 0 •\ 1 `•.o Dp' op p L R6 9 o %po °o. VISUAL DESIGN PLAN o \ ( /700 000° 0 0❑❑❑ 04°09❑❑❑ .p° Op 0 i Y Cglilpcl OPEry cP aE Ci li 11 \anrc a x[ , °v�(\\\\' cxliRiCaLUCagx ER[x COXTINUIPI Y.[^[ ••w • •\ co.m.EL:...rU FUR[ p'[r...• Millaille 111 .t. \ 0 THESE \ c1:1-- aTFEia mrtxxxr molcxnoxs xor©uoEo _� -.1' E ran \ �� LEXINGTON CENTER LOU NIE9 PREpLpEO EON E60 NIna;IML R SroX,EM 615 PEXUE iiia q EL PENI aPEENEIELUWa¢acNUaCTra .ax.N. I I 1 pLxR— — 0 ° _-_-_-_-_\ I � �� ` O I -'_r n �L y G ( di r I0 ._____,__,, 1 1 lug Q 1_-- ______\-- ._______. �.' -s �' r .' t` �-- _ . El p,P 1 ..,,,,„,a \ / I EYISOH r_____, �� p.l °� I B1J11�T11 i� 3I V \ / id agfP ,, . ¢tia______ ,. + i I 1 '� 1 O S pVEXYE4: 2 —ji pV ENUE / � I a 1 ' MASSACHUSETTS SIiTT4/I I LC t \ I / ___ Er aid-d-4-E 1-filr MPssPCXYSETTE 11 Th tti \:tit_ '44 E. ,v � + .T r T � �� / ip M �_ I 3 I 0 any u k '2]-,_1_!1 1 P01.0 �. \ C1-0 \ / I \-{ \/�� 4` 'y b � � I- \O, \ l� �YXR In -(UPJ pH Y �,4 ED , ol�� 1n 1 1 �.—. _ ' IIJ n ittli; y 1J //PUBLIC ACTIONS PPYM STREET ,Y �t* - / Mlrt _ %yip / SCHEDULE , ,-- }.. -£ 2a r / S$ BEAUTIFICATION � L � N C1K }c td ", ;�"s• tar.' /// 1-1966-6"I PARKING ';� rl .2=-:,1,:. 1R+w"9 // Z'19W-60 n ACCESS `°EES, U �:I II ��J yl -_7-1'"��� "` 3 LATER ZONING CHANGE sLEXINGTON EXYNGTON RCORRY EPXY NONE TATEYN ER OSTREET fV>Z\ T7Q EEON SRIFALCONERSIN.ARCHITECTSGREENFIELD.MASSACHUSETTS ICIT I I