History vs. Housing — that is a question some of us are grappling with. Lexington’s history is of utmost importance because of what happened here 250 years ago. It helped shape our nation and it has helped shape our town. Most of us embrace our place in history and we’re proud to live in a town with such a significant past.
Housing is important, too. However, they are not mutually exclusive. We can have both and we should have both.
The proposed redevelopment of 16 Clarke Street is in the Battle Green Historic District. It is next door to beautiful Cary Memorial Library and right across the street from peaceful Belfry Hill. This new building will be roughly 15 feet taller than both Belfry Hill AND Cary Library. Plus, mechanicals on the roof. It will be seen from the Minuteman Statue, Buckman Tavern and the Visitors Center — and obviously from Belfry Hill. It’s too big and out of scale with the surrounding buildings. This proposal, on less than an acre of land, will have 52+ residential condo units plus retail on the first floor. Parking and traffic are major concerns.
Housing is a lofty goal, but this is not the place to put such a massive building which will overwhelm this area. There are many other locations where new housing is being, and will be, built in the next few years. Locations that are not within the shadows of our sensitive historic sites. Would a development like this be proposed next door to Buckman Tavern? Where does the line get drawn?
After Town Meeting voted to rezone well over 200 acres for by-right new multi-family housing, they realized that perhaps the Central Business District should be excluded. At a later vote, after realizing the impact of their first vote, they did in fact withdraw the CB District. However, some developers filed for by-right building permits before the second vote was taken. This is what happened here. It served as a loophole.
Why can’t we have both a reverence for our history and enjoy the satisfaction that comes with building more housing?
Let’s use common sense. Let’s compromise and build a 2 or 2 ½ story building that will be appropriate for this sensitive location.
I disagree that “housing is a lofty goal”. It is actually essential, no lofty at all, for the physical welfare of our people but also the social welfare of our community. We commonly complain about how Lexington Center is dominated by banks and realtors, and I think part of the reason is that our downtown has been designed around that twentith-century zoning paradigm, in which business and residential premises should be separated.
If we want to bring more life to the center, and I do, we need people living there. Not everybody wants or needs the single-family home that has typified suburban development. We should have a range of options, to give people a choice, without requiring them to live in another town, just because single-family houses are not what they’re looking for. That can be young people, but equally older people who might be interested in down-sizing, yet not wanting to move away from the community they’ve lived in for years.
Let’s have more housing options in Lexington Center.
Frank, there’s a saying in Mandarin that effectively translates to, “hearts linked, using only a few words.” That’s how I felt when reading your brilliantly stated first two lines. In case you see this, I’d love to connect: ravneetgrew (at the most common email domain name).
And as a former Archaeologist, I find history precious; just not more precious than our collective future – which will only be preserved if we arrest urban sprawl, reduce commuter-related emissions, and invest in our workforce. My family is deeply invested in Lexington, and its financial and social future will likely have a huge impact on our personal futures and retirement plans – I don’t treat concerns of residents lightly. But in this case, I cannot understand what history or future is at risk by allowing badly needed commercial space and housing in a currently underutilized lot other than exclusionary ones (https://www.segregatedbydesign.com/ and https://equitable-arlington.org/history-of-zoning/). To the contrary, it builds toward a more robust tax base, a more secure regional economy (the need for which recent federal changes should have made abundantly clear to everyone), and shifting the current residential tax burden.
I don’t think the author is arguing for no new housing on this site; indeed her words are “Let’s use common sense. Let’s compromise and build a 2 or 2 ½ story building that will be appropriate for this sensitive location.” This sounds like a viable housing alternative as the previous comment is calling for.