Case Studieson Route 1: How the PerceivedIdentity of LocalCommercial Strips Affects Zoning

by Lily Baum Pollans

B.A. Urban Studies Barnard College, 2001

SUBMITTEDTO THE DEPARTMENTOF URBANSTUDIES AND PLANNINGIN PARTIALFULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREEOF

MASTERIN CITY PLANNING AT THE MASSACHUSETTSINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUNE2005 JUN2 8 2005 © Lily Baum Pollans. All rights reserved. LIBRARIES The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.

Signature of Author: ------Department of Urban Studies and Planning June 19, 2005

Certified by: ------/ Tfry S. Szold Adjunct Associate Professor of Urban Studies and Planning ,/I A Thesis Suoervisor

Accepted by: ------D- Fr-- ---

Professor of the Practice of Urban Studies and Planning Chairman, MCPCommittee ROTCH 2 CaseStudies on Route 1: How the PerceivedIdentity of Local Commercial Strips Affects Zoning

Lily Pollans

Submittedto the Departmentof UrbanStudies and Planning on May 19, 2005 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementfor the Degreeof Master in City Planning

Abstract:

Designers,planners, and new urbanistshave often arguedthat highwaystrips, replete with big box retail and countlessstrip malls, are essentiallyplaceless. It has also beenargued that genericlocal zoning is largelyto blamefor existenceand persistenceof strips. Whilethere may be sometruth to theseclaims, every strip exists within a city, or town, or municipality,and has a unique relationshipwith that place. This thesis exploresRoute 1 through Dedham,Saugus and Peabody,MA to highlight that far from being interchangeablelandscapes, the Route1 strip variesfrom town to town, bearingdistinctive marksof eachtown's approach to controlling it. Thesecases illustrate that a key variablein how heavilytowns will rely on zoning to shapeand control strip developmentis whether or not they viewtheir strip as part of the town rather than as an outsideentity. This thesis arguesthat, while it is true that variation betweenstrip landscapesstems from zoning, the strip formula is not that simple: the way in which the townswrite and implementtheir codederives from the perceivedidentity of eachRoute 1 strip, ultimatelyaffecting the appearance of that strip.

Advisor:Terry S. Szold,Adjunct AssociateProfessor, Department Urban Studies and Planning Reader:Greg Morrow, Lecturer, Department of UrbanStudies and Planning 4 Acknowledgements

To Fred Berroni, Ellen Burns, Mary Carfagna,Jean Delios, Katy Galinas,Janet Leuci, Arthur Noonan, Mike Parquette,Dan Shapiro,Joe Viola, and Peter Zahka, I thank you for taking time to share your experienceswith me. Your words are the heart of this thesis.

Thankyou to Terry Szold and Greg Morrowfor your patienceand your unwaveringefforts to steer me in the right direction. Thank you also to Mark Schus- ter for setting me off on the right foot.

Karenand Solana,thanks for introducing me to the matrix, for editing and pep-taking,and for listening to my midnight rants. Margs,this thesis would be nowhere if it weren't for your comma revolution. Thacher,thank you for your tireless last minute ed- iting. 6 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 9 1. Definitions 11. CaseStudies Ill. Scopeand Limitationsof Research IV. Importanceof Research V. ChapterSummary

Chapter 2: Methodology 17 1. Introduction II. Phase1 Ill. Phase2 IV.Conclusion

Chapter 3: Background and Literature Review 23 1. Introduction II. The SuburbanStrip Ill. Strip Zoning IV. PerceivedIdentity of Place V. Conclusion

Chapter 4: Existing Conditions and Zoning 33 1. Introduction H1.Zoning Regulations Ill. ExistingConditions IV. Zoning Implementation V. Conclusion

Chapter 5: Role of Perceived Identity 45 1. Introduction 11.Dedham Ill. Saugus IV. Peabody V. Conclusion

Chapter 6: Conclusion 61

Bibliography 69 Appendix A: Demographics Table 75 Appendix B: Summaries of Findings 76 8 Chapter 1: Introduction

Some sentimentalists will claim that Route 1 is America, that our great country would be nowhere if not for strip zoning. - Bella English, Boston Globe Staff Writer,

Themodel of the human habitat dictated by zoning is a formless, soulless, centerless, demoralizing mess. It bankrupts families and townships. It causes mental illness. disables whole classes of decent, normal citizens. It ruins the air we breathe. It It 2 corrupts and deadens our spirits. - James Howard Kunstler, Home from Nowhere

Myinterest in Route1 stemsfrom childhoodcartrips Both authors point to zoning as the source of the from Bostonto Essexthrough Saugus,Lynnefield, form of commercial strip development. Much of Peabodyand all the way up to Topsfield where the recent literature treats strip zoning as a single, Route 1 becomes a rural, two-lane New England simple phenomenon. Curious about whether road. As a child, I was thrilled by the kitschy this was really the case, I planned to investigate signageand absurd sculpture. The roadside,filled the degree to which dimensional requirements in with fiberglass cacti, castles,and building facades commercial strip developments were predictors that look like ships, is so rich with narrative and for the actual appearanceof the existing strip. I imagerythat it seemedto me that someonehad expected that each town's strip would be similar built this world entirely for my amusement. to the next town's, and that the codes in the three towns I had selectedwould be comparable. Now, as a student of the built environment, I understandthat this strip and others like it across However,as I progressedin myresearch, I found that the country are the subject of much contention the formula was not as simple as I had imagined. and debate. As I have becomeaware of increasing Not only are the roadsidesdifferent in appearance dialogue about the nature of strip development, from town to town, but I also found significant the remnants of this childhood fascination have variation in how much each town's zoning code transformed into a broader interest in these attempts to regulate. Mounting evidencethat strip roadside environments, and their relationshipsto developmentis in fact quite different from town to the towns in which they reside. town led me to wonder about the different kinds of relationships that individual towns had with their The quotes above introduce some of the recent strips. Does the way that communities feel about discussion of contemporary strip development. Route 1 play a role in the way each town elects to use zoning, ultimately affecting the amount of uses." The term originated in the 1920s, and has influenceeach town's zoning code has over its built been called many things including the hot dog strip? Morespecifically, does the way in which town trail and ribbon development.1 I use these terms officials and regulators perceive the identity of to broadly encompassthe modern iteration of this Route1 in their town affect the waytowns write and typologyof developmentincluding both "strip malls" implement their zoning code, ultimately affecting and large scalecommercial and retail development, the appearanceof their strips? or big box, designedto be both experiencedand accessedfrom a car. Strip districts generallyrefer to Simply, yes. Each of the three towns studied the clusters of strip developmentthat occur within here has a unique relationship with the regional zoning districts designated at edges of regional highway that passesthrough it, and the attitudes highwaysfor this kind of development. of town representativesare unmistakablevariables contributing to how much eachtown uses zoning Byperceived identity, I am referring to howregulators, to control its strip. The casestudies presented in town officials, and town plannersview the identity Chapters3 and 4 will illustrate that while the stories of the Route 1 strip. Evenmore specifically, I am unfold differently, there is a pattern: towns that using perceivedidentity as a phraseto expresshow view Route 1 as a part of the town use zoning more closelythese regulators,officials, and plannerslink aggressivelyto try and bring the imageof the Route the image of Route 1 to the identity of the town as I strip into congruencewith the imageof the town; a whole - i.e. do they see the Route1 strip and the towns that see Route 1 as something separatefrom town as the same;do they see Route1 and the town the town do not rely on zoning heavily,since they as completely separate entities, sharing nothing primarily view zoning as being appropriateonly for but a tax base? developmentwithin more central parts of town. In terms of Zoning, for the purposesof this paper I I. Definitions havefocused on the dimensionalrequirements and implementation mechanisms that pertain to the Before moving on I will provide some clarifying districts surrounding Route 1. By implementation definitions for the termsin the question and thesis of the zoning regulation, I am referring to the statementabove. mechanismsthrough which the codesare enforced by town bodies, for examplethe strength of a site Firstly, I would like to define strip districts and strip plan review or the ease by which special permit development.Dolores Haydendefines the strip as granting authorities dole out special permits. In ''an arterial road lined with automobile oriented general, when I discuss"how towns use zoning" I mean how specific their dimensional requirements Route 1, once known as the BostonPost Road, was are; how many individual measurements they first trod by a horsemansent out of New York City attemptto regulate;the degreeto whichthe town has to deliver the first official monthly post to Boston. discretionary control over developmentapprovals; It took him two weeks to make the journey. About in other words, how much overall control over the 100 years later, Benjamin Franklin set out in a physical environment the town assumesthrough horseand carriagewith an odometer strappedto its their zoning code. wheel, and drove a stakeinto the ground every mile betweenBoston to NewYork, in order to convince II. Case Studies users of the postal servicethat the per mile charge was fair.2 As time wore on, Route 1 stretched its This thesis will be based on the in depth study of the zoning code in three Route 1 cities and towns in Massachusetts:Dedham, Peabody, andSaugus. All three towns sharea bisecting regional highway and complimentarystrips of highwaydevelopment. Route 1 has cut through all of these towns since they were unincorporated settlements, meaning that none of the towns suffered traumatic changes due to the creation of the road. In addition to the their locational and historical similarities, these towns proved ideal case studies, becausethey are all very different places, with different planning resources, and notably different demographics (see Appendix A for a comparativetable of basic town demographics). The different demographics, size and socio-economiccomposition of the towns servesto emphasizethat the importanceof the role of perceivedidentity is consistent across different kinds of cities and town. Also, the differences between the towns help to highlight each strip's uniqueness,and the similarities provide a strong A *---.- -_-_Route 1 basis bywhich to compareeach town's relationship Figure 1: Bostonarea map showingcase study town (Source: with its Route 1. compiledby authorwith MIT GeoData). Introduction 11 sinews both northward and southward following a on Dedham'stwo majorrivers, and the town began course laid by local roadsalong its path, ultimately exporting spuncotton, wool, wire, paper, carriages, running the entire lengthof the eastern seaboard, and other goods. The town was first built out as Maine to Florida. While each of the following modest housing for mill workers' families. Even towns grew around this road, they have dealt very though much of the town remained agricultural, differently with its presence. Dedham'sbasic form and characterwas established during this period. Bythe early twentieth century, Dedham: Dedham was first settled by colonists most of Dedham's agricultural land had been in the late seventeenth century. It remained a convertedto residential uses,and as an increasing predominantlyagricultural community for the next numberof Dedhamresidents commutedto Boston two hundredyears. During the nineteenthcentury, via the Post Road,Dedham began to see the early a full-fledged manufacturingindustry beganto grow build out of its highwaystrip.

The stretch of Route 1 running south of Boston, through Dedham, is now formally known as the Boston-ProvidenceHighway. The building pattern was firmly establishedduring the 1950's when the first large scale retail located there, but as early as 1935, the roadside showed signs of the form it would later take.3 The skeleton of large parcels, large buildings, and large parking lots, officially codified in Dedham's 1963 master plan, persists today. In the early 1990s, however,a coalition of interests including the town planning board and community members began to push the Route 1 landscapeas a central issue when the process of revisingthe town's master plan began.4

Dedhamcurrently has a town meeting structure of government. The town meeting consists of 170 elected members,and this body is predominantly Figure 2: This Howard Johnson's on Route 1 in Dedham showsthe style of build- responsible for adopting zoning changes and out prior to the 1950s. (Source: Dedham Historical Society). making overallplanning decisions. The town's five-memberBoard of Selectmen,which are elected betweenBoston and Maine,it waswell traveled,even bythe town meeting, draft and approve policy and in its early days. Bythe time of the roadwidening, legislativechanges in the town. The town also has the roadside was already built out with highway a strong and active four-member planning board, oriented businessessuch as motels, convenience selected through open elections. The planning stores, and diners. Most of Route 1 Saugus' most board is responsiblefor maintaining and updating famous landmarks were built in the 1960s and the town master plan and for approvingall site plan 70s, including the Hilltop Steakhouse'sfifty foot and subdivision plans. Dedhamalso has a zoning cactus.6 board of appeals,and a design reviewboard whose membersare selected by the Board of Selectmen. Saugus,like Dedham, is run with a town meeting Dedhamemploys one part-time planner, who has structure. The Saugus five-member Board of been on the job in Dedhamsince the early 1990s. Selectmen,for approving all permits and special Beforehe was hired, thetown relied solely on town permits, for selecting the town manager, and for meeting and the planning board to make most appointing membersto town boardsand committees important planning decisions.

Saugus:The town of Saugus, much like Dedham, was establishedearly as an agricultural settlement. It remainedsparsely populated until the Industrial Revolution when industries such as the famous SaugusIron Works,stonequarries, and otherrelatively heavyindustries opened up shop. Also similar to Dedham,Saugus began to evolve into a commuter suburb in the early twentieth century. Until this time, Route 1 was little more than a dirt path. But, by the beginning of the 20th century, development around the road had grown substantially enough that the State Highway Department recommended turning the road into a state highway.I The road was paved in 1922, designatedas Route 1 in 1925, and widened to its current dimensions in 1953. Figure 3: "Landmark'sDecisions" cartoon charicature's Sau- BecauseRoute 1 wasthe primary north-south route gus Route1 icons. (Source:Gathering Memories). Introduction 13 including the planning board and zoning board of and Saugus. The city is run by an elected eleven- appeals. The board membersare elected for two- member City Councilthat has legislativedecision- year terms in general town-wide elections. The making power, including adopting any changes Saugustown meeting is comprised of fifty elected to the zoning by-law. PeabodyCity Council also members, and is responsible for approving all selects the nine-memberplanning board and the town budgets, and drafting and adopting policy five-memberzoning board of appeals;the planning and legislative changes,including changesto the board overseesthe subdivision of land, and the zoning by-law. The town has periodically hired a zoning board overseesapplications for variances director of community development,but does not and specialpermits, but ultimately both serveonly currently keepa planner on staff. advisorypositions to the city council. The City also has a community development department with Peabody: Peabody's early settlement history a full-time staff including four full-time planners. parallels that of Saugus. It was officially The Department overseesthe maintenanceof the incorporatedas a town in 1866, under the nameof master plan, drafts zoning changes,and oversees South Danvers. In 1868, South Danverschanged housingdevelopment. its name to Peabody,and becamea city. Due to its prime location along threeprominent rivers, While the path of Route 1 has been etched through Peabodysoon became a regional manufacturing all of the case study towns for almost as long as center, producingglassworks, pottery, cotton, wool the towns havebeen incorporated,their strips were and glue; the main industry was leather, endowing developed long after the towns' centers. For the Peabodywith the nickname,leather city.7 most part the zoning along the strips was written, if not to activelyattract the kind of developmentthat WhileRoute 1 Peabodyshares its history with Route exists there now, then as a suitable envelopefor 1 Saugus, one primary difference distinguishes modernauto-oriented development that the towns the two to this day. Severalmobile home parks hopedwould providestable economic growth. In the in Peabodylocated along Route 1 during the mid- late 1950s, many towns in the Bostonmetropolitan twentieth century. By the time the city wrote its were experiencingsuch unprecedentedresidential first zoning code in the 1950s, the parks were well- growththat fiscaland infrastructurestrains resulted; established uses, and have been both permitted these towns often adopted pro-development uses and vocal constituenciesever since. policies, including converting land from residential to strip commercial zones along major arterials BecausePeabody is a city, rather than a town, its such as Route 1.8 These towns all share this governmentalstructure is different than in Dedham common history and common road, making them good samplesof similar places that have evolved the study towns, and therefore, I will spend little remarkablydifferent strips. time assessingthe developments by any criteria other than how well they respond to the criteria Ill. ResearchScope and Limitations set out in their respectivezoning codesand master plans. Furthermore,because the researchis focused This thesis ties perceivedidentities of strip districts only on the parts of the zoning codesthat relate to to how those strips are governedby zoning code. Route 1, I cannot make assertionsabout zoning as The first thing to note is that I only conducted a whole, or about any of the towns' approach to interviews with planners and city officials. There zoning as a whole. are number of other groups whose interests and perceptionsare equallyrelevant to how towns make IV. Importanceof this Research decision, including citizens, businessowners, and non-profit groups,that I did not incorporateinto the This researchcontributes to an ongoing discussion researchfor this thesis. Therefore, the argument about suburban sprawl and suburban strips in presented here is restricted to how public sector particular. This paper uncovers a subtlety about officials perceivethe identity of strip districts, and strips and their regulation that is not present in how their perceptionsinfluence the use of zoning the current scholarship about strip development. code. Ideally, this revelation of complexity within strip environments and the towns in which they This research uncovers a number of correlated reside will prompt further research into better questions that are not within the scope of this ways of approaching the reform of existing strip argument. Most prominently, as mentionedabove, developments. this thesis will not examine the possible roots of the different identities assignedto Route 1 by V. ChapterSummary each town. While there are qualitative differences betweenthe composition of the towns' planning Chapter2: Methodology.Before delving in to the boards,overall population demographics,planning content of the literature review and case study budgets, and developmenthistory, this thesis will chapters, this chapter describes how I conducted focus on the results of the identifications, rather my researchand analysis. The chapterexplains the than these potential causes. choicesI madein terms of how to conductinterviews and who to talk to; how I locatedadditional sources; Additionally, this thesis is not intended to argue how I analyzedthose sources;and ultimately, the about the quality of the resulting developmentsin caveatsassociated with eachof my choices. Introduction 15 Chapter 3: Backgroundand Literature Review. officials and how the towns use zoning in their strip This chapterwill briefly outline the most important districts. The chapter argues that in each of the literature regarding suburban strips, zoning, and casestudy towns, the ways in which public officials the perceivedidentity of place. The reviewfocuses view their strip influencesthe decisionsthey make on New Urbanist literature that typically argues about how to use zoning to regulatetheir strip. that suburban strips are essentially built out representationsof bad zoning. This chapter sets up the discussionin Chapters3 and 4, that seek to find a subtlety in the relationshipbetween zoning, town and strip that is not addressedwithin the New Urbanistdialogue.

Chapter4:Existing Conditions and Zoning.Chapter 4 lays the foundation for Chapter4 by illustrating that, contrary to the New Urbanist position, there is significant variation in physical and regulatory environments between the studied strips. I take the reader on a tour of the existing conditions of Route 1 in Dedham,Saugus and Peabodyand then outline the relevant zoning by-law in each of the towns. I then comparehow well the code predicts the build out in eachtown. I concludethe chapter by exploring some of the reasonsfor the variation that stem from the dimensionalrequirements and the manners in which the towns enforce those requirements.

Chapter 5: The Role of PerceivedIdentity. The preceding discussion leads to the final step in answeringthe questionof this thesis. Isthe variation revealedin Chapter4 relatedto the way that these communitiesperceive their strip? Chapter5 probes the relationship betweenthe perceptionsof public Chapter 2: Methodology

1.Introduction

In order to answer the question of whether and perceivedby the towns it passesthrough, and how how perceivedidentity of strip districts effects how that perceptionhas influenced each town's decisions strips are regulated, I broke my researchinto two about regulatingthe roadside. This portion of the distinct sectionsof questioning and analysis. The investigation involved establishing a connection first phase,encapsulated in Chapter4, establishes betweenhow town officials view their strips and the that thesethree strips differ from one another both variation in zoning approachesexplored in Phase2. in built landscapeand in how they are regulated by their respective towns. I use photographs Becausethe nature of my thesis questionis complex to illustrate the current conditions of the three and qualitative, I relied primarily on three sources commercial strips. In order to understand how of information in order to bolster my findings from the strips are regulated, I relied primarily on the any given source. The three sourcesare interviews, most recentversion of each town's zoning code; I published planning documents, and local and focused on the dimensionaland use requirements regional press coverage. Eachsource provided its that govern highway developmentareas, and the own benefits and challenges. Below,I will discuss implementation measuresthat the code provides in depth how I selected and analyzedmy sources for those districts. I gathered information from for the first and secondphases of my research. interviews with local officials, planning board members,and planners in eachtown. 1I.Phase 1

The second phase is a deeper analysisof the way in order to makea compellingcase for realvariation Route 1 and its accompanying development is betweenstrip districts for Phase1, I relied primarily on anexamination of actualzoning by-lawand on my Ill. Phase2 own observationof the physicalstrip environments in each town. Developing a sense for each town's officials' perceptions of Route 1 and connecting those ZoningBy-Law: I relied on the most recentversion perceptionsto how eachtown usesstrip zoningwas of each town's zoning by law in order to illustrate a more complicatedtask than researchingfor Phase the regulatory differences from town to town. In 1. I relied on three basic sourcesfor information: order to make the most effective and concise personal interviews, planning documents, local case,I decidedto only do detailed comparisonsof press. dimensional requirements in the zoning districts abutting Route1. A table illustratingthe comparison A. Interviews is included in Chapter4. Not only was it important to illustrate the differences in how much each Identifying and contacting interviewees: The town's zoning attempts to regulate, it was also most informative and important source for this important to illustrate that they way each town's researchwere the interviews I conducted. Due to enforcementdiffers. ThereforeI relied on the text time constraints and the scale of this project, I of the by-law, and the expertise of my interview elected to focus my researchon the perceptionsof subjects (discussed further below) to gather an local planners and officials, rather than on a wider understandingof each town's site plan and design cross-sectionof individuals involved in decision- review processes. making along Route 1. My initial goal was to interview several individuals from each town, and Observation:After establishingthat eachtown has to try and interview people in the same position a very different regulatoryframework for its stretch in each town. I identified twenty people over the of strip, I wanted to illustrate that these approaches three case-studycities and towns; this list included lead to very different outcomes in physical build planning board and zoning board of appeals out. To do this, I drove up and down Route 1 members,town-meeting members, city councilmen, through each town, photographing various site selectmen,staff and planners. I contactedall twenty conditions, building orientation, landscaping, and individuals,and ultimately interviewedeleven town parking features. A selectionof these photographs planners, representatives,and officials, during a accompaniesthe descriptionof eachtown's strip in total of fourteen interviews. Although the response Chapter4. rate was not ideal, supporting information from my other sources(discussed below) helped to reinforce the trends I identified from the interviews. This triangulationwas most important in Peabody,where Becauseof the informal structure of my interview I was only able to interviewtwo city planners. method, I electedto take notes from eachinterview, rather than recording or transcribing them. This Interviewmethod and structure:I electedto use allowedme to engagemore openly in conversation a free-form interviewtechnique for severalreasons. with my interviewsubjects. I took notes during the I wanted to develop an understandingof how the interviews,documenting the questionsI askedthat interview subjects perceivedRoute 1 in their own were not initially part of my centralset of questions, language,to understandtheir individual priorities, and taking notes on all of their answers. When a and to get a sense of their individual relationship subject made a comment that was particularly to the road. Therefore it was important that the salient, I transcribed it directly. intervieweesresponded to open-endedquestions. Because many of the individuals I interviewed Analyzing findings: I conducted interviews both are part-time employees, volunteers, or elected over the phoneand in person. I took notes byhand, officials, I felt that I would achievebetter response in order to maximize the conversationalnature of ratethrough direct contactand conversation,rather the interaction. After each interview, I typed my than a written survey with open ended questions notes from the interview, and began to catalogue that could be more time consuming than an oral the responses of each subject according to the interview. central themes I discuss in the body of this thesis. I probed the results of each interviewto determine Initially, I developed a central set of questions eachindividual's priorities forRoute 1, andthen each that I intended to ask each interview subject. individual'sperception of: the role of Route1 in the However,after conducting the first two interviews, community; the role of zoning in shaping Route 1 it was clear that once I had describedmy topic and development;the role of zoning implementationin question, many subjects would talk about what shaping Route 1 development;and the connection they felt comfortable talking about, regardlessof betweenthe perceivedrole/identity of Route 1 and the questions I asked. As most subjectsfelt more the town's approachto strip zoning. In somecases comfortable in a conversationalsetting rather than these questions were explicitly answered by the a structured setting, I shifted to a more free-form interview subjects, and in other cases,the subject interviewstructure. Therefore, while I still attempted discussedthese questionsin the context of specific to cover my central questions in each interview, developments,or in responseto other questions. there wasa large degreeof variation in the material (For a summarymatrix of all interviews,please see and topics coveredinterview to interview. Appendix B.)

Methodology19 Strengths/weaknessesof method: This free- planners, planning documents are a good, stable form, open-ended question interview method source for information about the attitudes of this allowed me to derive the vocabulary for my thesis group. from what I learned in the interviews, rather than imposing my own framework on each interview C. Localand RegionalPress subject. However, this process also heightened the degree of subjectivity necessary in analyzing and Gatheringsources: In order to gather a sample of comparing the content of the interviews. articles, I first conducted broad searches through periodical archives. These searches returned a B. PlanningDocuments broad spectrum of articles pertaining to Route 1 in each case study town, but ultimately did not provide Gatheringsources: In terms of planning documents, a bulk of relevant articles. I relied on published plans and analysis documents from each of the three cities and towns. All three After these initial searches, I conducted searches case study municipalities had recent planning through press clippings files in local libraries and documents that I was able to analyze. planning office archives and Ialso received a number of clippings from my interview subjects. Myaccess Analyzing findings: I used a similar method for to press sources was limited by the resources of the analyzing planning documents as I used for the town. Dedham and Saugus Libraries both maintain interviews. I read the documents in the interest of extensive clippings files, and planners and officials determining: the overall focus of each document on in both towns maintain their own archives which the Route 1 area; the expressed or implied attitude they generously shared. In Peabody, however, or perception about the identity of Route 1 in the neither the library nor the planning office maintains town; and how the documents address (or did not a clippings file, thus limiting my access to local address) zoning on Route 1. (A summary matrix of press resources in Peabody. these documents can be viewed in Appendix B). Analyzing findings: The press sources tended to Strengths/limitationsof source: The primary provide supporting and background information limitation of the documents is that they tell a very rather than central evidence for my arguments. specific story about the values of its authors, but Nevertheless, I used a similar method for analyzing not necessarily about the values of town as whole. the press sources as I used for the planning However, because this research is primarily focused documents and interviews. I categorized the on the perceptions and views of town officials and articles in terms of whether they were news articles or editorial articles, and then in both casesassessed and my researchoverall. what the expressedor implied attitude about Route 1 was;whether or not the articles shed light on the IV. Conclusion relationship between the presented attitudes and zoning; and ultimately whoseattitudes, opinions, OnceI had cataloguedthe contentof the interviews, or perceptionswere being expressed.(Please see documents, and articles, distinct trends emerged Appendix B for a summary of my findings from within each town. These trends comprise the press sources). thematic content of the case studies presented in Chapters4 and 5, and form the basis of my thesis Strength/limitationsof sources:Exploring local argument. In drafting the case study stories, I and regionalpress coverageof Route1 in Dedham, selected representativequotes from each of my Saugus and Peabody provided me with some sourcebodies to illustrate these trends. background insights into both how Route 1 is perceivedwithin eachtown, and how it is perceived by outsiders. In addition, many of the articles that I came across contained quotes and stories about officials and plannerswho I was not able to interview directly. While these sources could not provide the same level of certainty about content as a direct interview, they did provide additional insight, and accessto stories that did not surface in other sources. However,because I did not locate an exhaustivegroup of all articles on Route 1 for each town, I cannot say the articles I found are representativeof all articles. Also, it is possible that the articles I gathered from individuals' collections were biased in support of the view of the individual. Nevertheless,the articles were an important resource for understanding context and background. In most cases they served to bolster my analysis from interviews and planning documents,and therefore served to deepen both my understandingof the range of issues at hand, Methodology21 22 Chapter 3: Backgroundand Literature Review

U.S. Highway 1 is in fact one of the most sensationally ugly roads in America... JB Jackson, Landscapein Sight'0

1. Introduction

Early fascination with the strip was evidenced in the strip still eludeseven the brightest planners. the writings of critics, architects,and designers.As stated byJBJackson, the strip's While there is little literature specifically about zoning in commercialstrip districts and none about "potentialities for trouble - esthetic, social, perceivedidentity and zoning, there are significant economic- are as great as its potentialities bodiesofwork devotedto understandingthe physical for good, and indeed it is this ambidexterity and formal effects of various kinds of regulation in which gives the highway and its margins suburban areas,the design of commercial strips, so much significanceand fascination. But and how issueslike perceptioncan influencepolicy- how are we to tame this force unless we making. The following chapterwill surveythe three understand it and even develop a kind of significant strains of literature that contributeto an love for it? And I do not believethat we have ongoing discussion,started by authors likeJackson really tried to understandit as yet. For one to carve a niche for the central argument of this thing, we know little or nothing about how thesis. the roadside development,the strip, came into being, nor about how it grows."9 II. The Suburban Strip

Thesequestions that Jacksonposes in 1958 have Recentbooks by Grady Clay and Dolores Hayden, rarely been addressedhead on by other writers in following in the exploratorytradition of JBJackson, the half centurysince. In fact, muchof what puzzled have sought to find the right language and Jacksonabout the contradictionsand mysteryof context for the American suburbs. Clay's Real and how important it is to developbetter ways keep up with it.

Thirty years ago,Robert Venturi, DeniseScott Brown and JBJackson first beganto critically examinethe nature of the highway strip. Learning From Las Vegas is the first real attempt to understand the strip on its own terms. Venturi and Brown distill from the LasVegas strip a vocabularyof commerce, attraction, competition,and a unique logic. Within this "architecture of persuasion" a co-dependent relationship between the highway and the strip developmentis conceivedand cemented."

JBJackson picks up on the questions that Venturi and Brown raise. In an attempt to explain the growing incoherence and questionable taste of much highwaydevelopment, Jackson proposes the following:

"At present the average highway resort - motel,drive-in movie, restaurant, ornightclub - has been put up by the owner with no sort of guidance but his own limited experience and taste, orat bestby a building contractor. The display signs are usually the product of an industrial firm knowing nothing of the location of the public... The landscaping is done by the local nurseryman,and the planning, the location, the relationship to the neighbors and to the highwayis little Figure 1 (Above):An "Edge Node"(Source: Jim Wark photo from A Field Guide to Sprawl); Figure 2: Imageof the Vegas more than an adjustment to local zoning Strip (Source:Learning from Las Vegas). restrictions or to the edicts of the highway department. We need not be astonishedat critical thinking about zoning during the 1960s. the results."12 As a starting point in his "Zoning" chapter, Robert M. Leary begins by recognizing the confusion In this early critique, Jackson makes the first between"planning" and "zoning." In the early days stab at strip zoning. The attitude encompassed of comprehensiveplanning efforts, many towns in this passing comment by one of the first true simply created zoning maps and expectedthat to observersof the strip is echoed again and again be enoughto ensure healthy future growth. Leary in more recent criticism. Many authors argue that identifies three main concerns about how this the landscapesphotographed in Hayden'sbook are tendency to replace planning with zoning would literally built out versionsof bad zoning, and that to influence development patterns in the future: stop the proliferation of such unfortunate design, "1. There will be a tendency for development we must abandonzoning as a regulatorytool. This to be frozen in the existing pattern; 2. Wholly suggestion, as previously noted, is based on the unexpectedresults may be produced,frequently of assumptionthat strip developmentand regulation a very undesirable nature; 3. The ordinance may is a singular, uncomplicated phenomenon. The require amendmentto such an extent, on behalf of following section examines the literature about individual property owners,that no comprehensive 13 strip zoning in order to highlight these trends. pattern of developmentin the city can result." This prescientargument providesa useful grounding for Ill. Strip Zoning understandingwhat has happenedto some degree in all three casestudies examinedlater. Bythe late 1960s, planningtextbooks had identified the shortfalls of zoning as a comprehensive In large part, the use of zoning in lieu of planning planning tool, noting for example that zoning has been attributed to the federal Standard City was not suited towards creating aesthetically PlanningEnabling Act of 1928 which led to most pleasing environments. An interesting source state enabling acts. The "Act left many planners for professionalattitudes about zoning as a tool and public officials confused about the difference is planning text book chapters written at a time between a master plan and a zoning ordinance, when the urban renewalmovements of the 1950s so that hundredsof communities adopted 'zoning had shedsome doubt on the efficacyof centralized plans' without having created comprehensive planning efforts. plans as the basis for zoning."" It was not until 1954, with the passageof the Housing Act that require local One central 1968 book, Principals and Practice the federal government began to plans of Urban Planning,provides good insight into the governments to develop comprehensive LiteratureReview 25 in order to be eligible for various pots of federal enoughparking is provided,then thereis no reason money." This lag betweenenabling zoning and that neighborhood shops and residencescannot encouragingcomprehensive planning is at least in exist side by side, or one on top of the other.17 part responsiblefor the lack of vision and direction Leary'sarticle waswritten in 1968,around the same in many early zoning codes. time that the zoning codesfor the three casestudy towns addressedin this paperwere either written or More interesting than Leary's assessmentabout revised. The slight inconsistencies,such as mixed the dangers of replacing planning with zoning, is messagesabout segregating uses, visible within his evaluation of the "deficiencies"found in many his discussionwere largely acceptedby plannersin municipalities' original zoning codes. While Leary his day - explaining much of the peculiarity we will notes that the initial ranking of uses as higher see later in examiningthis old code. and lower (single family being the highest use, to be protected from all lower uses) was no longer Although much of his thinking appearsa bit dated, predominant at the time he wrote the article, Learyis one of the few authors, of his time or ours, his deficiency-list shows a distinct bias toward who deals comprehensivelywith zoning in both completely segregated use areas. For instance: residential and commercial areas. According to "7. Non-conforminguses [in residential areas] are Leary,the biggest problem regardingcommercial regulated in a manner that tends to perpetuate zoning at the time of his article was the allotment them rather thanlead to their eventualelimination;" of too much space for commercial zones. He or "9. Some commercialuses such as gas stations argues that this phenomenon tended to cause or funeral homes are allowed in residential slums and abandoned properties when property districts;" and finally, "15. Neighborhoodbusiness ownersconverted residences to commercialspaces district regulations are not designed to minimize expecting higher returns only to find no market for any adverseeffects of businessuse upon abutting their new spaces. Leary argues that this practice residentialareas."16 led to undervaluedproperties that attracted little or no attention, since once convertedto commercial, At the same time as demonstratinga concern for they couldn't be converted back into residential.8 the purity of the residential enclave, Leary does While Leary indicates significant concern about suggest that some mixed uses make sense given the placement and concentration of commercial the proper circumstances. For instance if industry facilities, however, he shows no concern about does not produce negativeeffects such as smoke, the physical layout of such centers.19 At this point dust, noise, unattractiveareas, there is no reason in the larger conversation about the efficacy or that residencescannot exist nearby. Similarly, if applicability of zoning, there was no discussion of how zoning could be used as a tool to control tendencyto spreadoutward and a deep love of the the appearance,organization, or function of a automobile, planning regulation - namely zoning commercialarea. and legislation like the 1960s Federal NewTown Program - promotes suburbansprawl. He states In "Zoning,"a similar article toLeary's but published quite directly that "our planning tools - notably in 1978, Frank S. So reiterates many of the same our zoning ordinances - facilitate segmented, concernsand trends. He too makesa half-hearted decentralized suburban growth while actually argument that the hierarchy of zoned uses has makingit impossibleto incorporatequalities thatwe broken down, suggesting that "zones are now associatewith" picturesqueNew Englandtowns. 22 mutually exclusive - residencescan generally no This argument, whilequite accuratein many ways, longer be built in commercial or industrial areas establishesa trend of discussingsuburban zoning becausethey can potentially cause(economic) harm as a uniform force in shaping developmentfrom to factoriesor warehouses."20 Despitethe lapseof placeto place. time, however,So reiteratesLeary's concern about underusedcommercial spaces to notethat "No one, In the past decade, several other well-known bythe way, has solvedthe bugabooof manycities - authors and planners have sharpened and the old linear or strip commercialarea, that remnant expanded Krieger'scriticism of suburban land of the age of the streetcar,which is deteriorating use regulation and growth policies to create a and is packedwith vacancies."121 In hishi article, So conceptualbasis for new urbanism. Muchhas been discussesstrips in more urban locations than the written about suburban residential development strips discussed in this thesis, but nevertheless and suburbanoffice developmentto draw attention his suggestion that no one has yet developed a to specific design consequencesof standard land zoning strategy to help reform commercial strip use regulations. Michael Southworth and Eran developmentis still relevant. Ben-Joseph's1995 article "Street Standards and the Shapingof Suburbia"draws a clear, empirical This concernabout the adaptabilityor reformability connection between the typical street standards of strip development has been picked up by promulgated by federal mortgage insurance contemporarycritics of the suburbanenvironment policy and by industry publications. The article and channeled into a more precise attack on the highlights street standardscreated for developers underlying concept of use-segregation. Alex taking advantageof FHAmortgage insurance. The Krieger argues in his "Since(and Before)Seaside" standardsincluded a standard eighty-foot right of in Duany and Plater-Zyberk's Towns and Town- way that provided room for the street to expand Making Principals, that in addition to a cultural as the neighborhood grew. These standards LiteratureReview 27 were adopted by nearly all subdivision developers density development,but is not clearly addressed sought to comply in order to be assuredmortgage in policy debates about growth control or urban 23 insurance. The FHAstandards became the model design. This article comescloser than any of the for most local subdivision control regulation precedingto establishingan empirical connection resulting in practically whole sale buy-in to the between written zoning code, and its physical federally developed standards. Southworth and outcome. Ben-Josephargue that "the rigid framework of current street standards has resulted in uniform, Muchof this literature,while focusing on suburban 2 unresponsivesuburban environments." residentialand office development,has ignoredthe commercial strip. James Howard Kunstler, author In a similar article, RichardWillson usesa series of of the much-publicizedand oft-quoted Geography case studies to argue that "parking policy is a key of Nowhere,wrote a subsequent bookcalled Home elementof the context for travel choicesand urban from Nowhere - a more technical analysis of the 2 form." s The typical parking ratio is four spaces roots and consequencesof American suburban per thousandsquare feet of office space- this ratio form - including the strip. The basic thrust of is derived from industry publications like the ULI Home from Nowhereis that zoning is responsible Office Development Handbook. However, a series of for all bad suburbs: studies conducted through the mid- to late-1980s indicatedthat most office developmentsshow peak "If you want to make your community demand levelsof betweentwo and three spacesper better, begin at once by throwing out your thousand square feet. The result is: "there is a lot zoning laws...the place that results from 26 of unused parking in the suburbs." zoning is suburban sprawl. It must be understood as the product of a particular The case studies surveyed in Willson's article all set of instructions. Its chief characteristics showedpeak parking usagewell below the amount are the strict separationof human activities of parking supplied. Willson's main point is an (or uses),mandatory driving to get from one economicargument that because"...parking typically use to another, and huge supplies of free was oversuppliedand provided at no direct cost to parking."29 tenants or their employees"there is no incentiveto seekalternate meansof transportation.27 However, In fact, not only does zoning result in un-sensibly his studyclearly establishes that "whenajurisdiction segregateduses, adopts high parking requirements, it is enacting 2 a form of growth control,"" that encourageslow "the model of the human habitat dictated by zoning is a formless, soulless, centerless, that zoning is largely responsiblefor the physical demoralizing mess. Itbankrupts families form of contemporary suburban development. and townships. It causesmental illness. It And, like Krieger, Kunstler presents thestrip and disables whole classes of decent, normal strip zoning without the subtlety encapsulatedin citizens. It ruins the air we breathe. It actual placesand zoning codes. corrupts and deadensour spirits."30 Despitethe call to abandonzoning, much of the New Kunstler takes the discussion of the ills of zoning Urbanistsystem is still dependenton very stringent regulation,the empiricalexploration by Southworth, regulation. The next step, "transect planning," is a BenJoseph, and Willson and brings it to bear on model devotedto eliminating traditional Euclidean commercial strip areas. But the argument is zoning altogether. Andr6s Duanyand EmilyTalen's essentially the same - requirements for setbacks 2002 article, "TransectPlanning," outlines their new and scalerender the strip into an "anti-place."31 He concept. Building on the work of Ian McHarg in suggeststhat most strip-mall locations are simply Design with Nature, transect planning applies the built out expressions of code requirements,and framework of ecozonesto the town plan. Instead he notes that strip use segregationmagnifies their of creating districts based on uses, the transect design quandaries, becauseno other typology is plan makes use of "form-basedcodes" that create allowedto co-existthere. zones based on dimensional requirements that facilitate certain uses and activities, and plans for While he is one of the few authors to take on both a continuum of densitiesthat can accommodateall residentialand commercialdistricts, as well as both uses. The transecttown beginswith an urban core use and dimensional requirements, Kunstler says at its center that is characterizedby the highest little about what should be done with our existing densities and radiates outwards with decreasing environments.He has latchedon the new urbanism densities until it reaches rural preserves and cannon, without providing ideas for how small reserves.33 towns with few resourcesfor planning can adapt their existing physicaland regulatory landscapeto Transect planning is based on the omnipresent be something better than what it is. His position is presumption in this literature that the cause of almost so hopeless,that it is hard to imaginethat sprawl is Euclideanzoning, and that by moving anything short of leveling much of the American away from uniform use district zoning, the landscape and starting from scratch would be problem of sprawl can be solved. While transect enoughto makeit better. Nevertheless,Kunstler has planning presents an interesting alternative for becomea centralfigure in the emergingconsensus new greenfield development,it does not address LiteratureReview 29 the existing variation and zoning subtleties within forge a connection between an understanding of existing suburban areas, and does not present a zoning and an understandingof the waythat people viable way to make existing placesgreener or more perceiveand identify real places. The final section efficient. 4 of this chapterwill explore this connection between perceivedidentity and place regulation in the work Not everyonebuys the Duanymodel however. Tonyof Nelessenand others. Nelessen'swork with visual preferencesurveys has provided alternative model to complete zoning IV. The PerceivedIdentity of Place code overhauls. Nelessenuses visual preference surveysto identify community preferencesfor the In his book, Visions for a New American Dream, style and form of new developments. Nelessen Nelessencritiques suburban sprawl and proposes begins to tap into the place identities that a new way to plan for denser, pedestrian-oriented, individuals perceivein placesthey like and dislike. more traditional suburban towns.While Nelessen, He uses the preferences that derive from those like most other authorson suburbia,treats suburban perceptions, to help communities convert their sprawl,particularly suburban strip developmentas a existing zoning into code that encourages more uniform environment,his trademarkedapproached favorable development. Nelessen'swork begins to to planning beginsto unveil the importanceof local communities perceptionsabout place, and makes the link between how those perceptions can be capturedto changezoning strategies(see Figure 3). Nelessenuses a survey in which respondents rate images of a variety of places based on what they like best. Visionsreports that typically the images showing traditional neighborhoods and town centersreceive the highest ratings, and arterial road bordered by strip malls typically receivethe lowest rating. Nelessenthen argues that by comparing what a community's zoning code actually would allow to the images that people found most appealing can help catalyze zoning changes that ArywherSuburtb, US& favor denser more traditional development." Figure3: "AnywhereSuburbia, USA" Even Nelessen treats sprawlas a uniform, identity-lessphenomenon. (Source: Vi- Nelessen makes a link between preference and sionsfor a NewAmerican Dream.) perception and regulation that, unlike Duany's Like Hayden's work, several environmental transect planning, can be tailored to individual psychologistshave picked up on the connection places and circumstances.36 However, he is in between place identity and policy action. Misse the businessof shaping preferencesand actively Webster-Herber's"Underlying Concerns in Land- working to use them to manipulate local zoning Use Conflicts - The Role of Place-Identityin Risk codes. Other strains of literature haveworked to Perception,"links place identity to risk perception highlight moreclosely the conceptsof placeidentity to illustrate that the level of an individual'saversion and perceivedidentity and how these perceptions to certain land uses will be strongly rooted in how 38 shape policy. The social science literature about closely they identify with the placethat they live. place identity defines the term similarly to the way The work of Hayden,Nelessen, and Webster-Herber I havedefined perceivedidentity for this thesis:the makes concrete steps towards connecting the way connection betweenthe image of physical setting people perceiveplace to the decisionspeople make 37 and an individual's identity. While this thesis about regulating place. looks at the connection between the image of physical setting and a town's identity, looking at V. Conclusion placeidentity providesinformative background,as ultimately even when looking at a town's identity, Not all authors and practitioners have taken the it is individuals perceivingthat identity and making approach that all of suburban development is decisionabout how to shapeit. homogenous. In Building Suburbia, yet another groundbreakingbook about the Americansuburbs, DoloresHayden's Power of Place;Urban Landscapes Dolores Hayden as Public History, a work that explores this questionof place identity, advocatesfor intensified "highlights the complex relationships scholarshipto uncoversocially inclusivelandscape betweenreal estate entrepreneurs and a wide histories becauseunless peoplefeel that a place is range of suburban residents and workers... linked with their personalor cultural identity, it will [and] exploresthe interplayof the naturaland and be difficult to motivate them to preservehistoric built environments,considers women's development. Rather than working to figure out children's lives as well as men's, discusses people's perceptionsof place as working-class houses and yards as well as how to harness "139 Nelessendoes, Power of Placehighlights the historic affluent ones... connection between perceived place identity and many action. Haydenconvinces her readersthat there are suburbias. While championing this rare notion LiteratureReview 31 of diversity of suburbia, Hayden focuses almost impact in how they makedecisions about regulating exclusivelyon residentialdevelopments. Eventhe those places. The following chapters representan early work of Venturi and Brown,JB Jackson, and attempt to illustrate that each suburban strip is otherstreats suburbia,and the strip in particular as unique; while zoning can have predictable results a singular landscapethat is replicated throughout in given situations, each town's strip zoning is a NorthAmerica. Hayden'svision of multiple histories product of many considerations, including the and subtlety where others see only endless "seas community'sperception of what its strip is andwhat of parking" has not yet filtered into the common it could be. Ultimately, these perceivedidentities understandingof strip commercialdevelopment. represent a driving force that has a measurable impact on how towns use zoning as a regulatory New Urbanist literature has come closest to tool to shapedevelopment in their strip districts. developing an understanding of the forces that shape the commercial strip. The New Urbanist writers, however, have concluded - based on an assumption that suburban strip development is simpleand homogeneous- that zoning is ultimately and uniformly to blame for the physical form of most suburban development. Even while they channel early warnings from planners like Leary, they treat zoning like an independentforce that has the power to form landscapeson its own. Because of this, the New Urbanist writers have suggested that until municipalitieshang their zoning out to dry and adopt a new method of regulation, either form- based codes, or transect planning, or something not yet thought of, then our cities and suburbs are at the mercy of long-outdated zoning codes, written by misguidedplanners twenty, thirty, even fifty years ago.

Nelessen, Hayden, and Webster-Herber,though writing in many different fields, argue that the way peoplefeel and think about placesultimately has an Chapter4: ExistingConditions and Zoning

Whereelse would a day-glotyrannosaur look so... so...perfectly at home?- Nathan Cobb,Boston Globe Staff Writeron Route141

1. Introduction

The starting point to approaching the central variation in how closely the built environment questionof this thesis - doesthe way in whichtown resembleswhat its code predicts, in large part due officials perceivethe identity of Route1 affect each to the variety of meansthat eachtown employs to town's approachto zoning their strip - relieson first implement its code,which will be the discussionof understandingeach town's approachto zoningtheir the fourth section of this chapter. The comparison strip. How much are they attempting to regulate? will illustrate that each town has a unique strip, Howmuch is eachtown relyingon zoningto control both in how it looks overalland how it is regulated development?Therefore, in the following chapter, by the town it is in. I will answer these questions in order to support the claim that these strips are infact quitedifferent II. Zoning Regulations from eachother - not only in appearance,but also in how tightly their appearancesare controlled by The following table sets up a quick comparison zoning. between various dimensional requirements for Route 1. The table shows that in terms of raw The following chapter will explore the dimensional dimensionalrequirements, Dedham and Peabody's requirements applicable to each to each town's HighwayBusiness districts (HB)are relativelysimilar, strip, and then comparewhat one might expect to particularly in terms of the regulationsthat havean see as a result of that code to the actual existing effect on the appearanceof eachdevelopment from conditions of Route I development in Dedham, the road, while Saugus' requirements are quite Saugus and Peabody. A subsequent cross-town different from both other towns. comparisonwill show that there is significant 1 acre 10,000 square feet None 2 acres 40'or 5 occupiable 20' or 1 story 50' 72', or 6 stories

30' 10' 50' 100'

None, unless bordering 40' 100' for residential, residential 30' other uses 40% 700/ 35% (Building 60% (Impervious Coverage) surface) 1 space/200 sf retail 1 space/ 300 sf 4.5 spaces/1000sf 5 spaces/1000sfof loor area gross floor area

200' 50' None None

20-foot strip from None 15-foot strip from None property line propertyline

5-foot buffer s nless bordering Half of Side Yard None residential______15% of paved parking None None None area, 40% of total lot .35 None None 0.4

Table 1: DimensionalRequirements Comparison (Source: Dedham, Saugus, and Peabodyzoning codes). HBstands for High- way BusinessDistrict; DDDstands for DesignedDimensional District.

Basedon the measurementsdisplayed in this table, spaceon each lot. The additional requirementthat it is possibleto imaginewhat the various landscapes forty percent of the lot be landscaped indicates might look like as you drive bythem on Route1. At that even if there are large paved parking lots, first glance,the Dedhamrequirements appear to be most properties will still feel softer and more the most comprehensiveand restrictive. The acre vegetated than a run-of-the-mill strip mall. The lot minimum suggeststhat the properties will be thirty foot minimum setback suggests that there fairly large, but the forty percent lot coverageratio will be no structuresvery close to the road, and the suggests that there will be a fair amount of open accompanyingfront yard landscapingrequirement indicates that every property will have a strip of ButRoute 1 in Peabodyis comprisedof two significant vegetation buffering the front of the lot from the zoning districts. Whilethe west side of the road is road. Whilethere might be variation in how far back governedby the highwaybusiness district, the east buildings sit from the road, the thirty foot minimum side is comprisedof Peabody'sDesign Development setback and the front landscape buffer indicate District (DDD). The minimum lot size is two acres, that from the road, the strip will feel organized,not immediately suggesting large scale development, terribly dense,and highlyregular. probably office parks. The larger building scale suggestedby the 0.4 floor area ratio (FAR)and the Peabody'sregulations predict a similar landscape. six-story limit and the higher parking ratio support The front setback is evenlarger, fifty feet, assuring the office or industrial park image. In addition the that almost all properties will have parking lots vast, one hundred-footset backs,and sixty percent in front of the structures. This large set back maximum impervious surface coverageindicate a minimizes the appearance of discontinuity vegetatedpark-like landscape. between properties; the difference between fifty and sixty feet is less noticeablefrom the roadway than a difference betweena ten and a twenty foot setback. Peabodyalso requires a vegetatedbuffer betweenproperties and Route 1, again suggesting a highlyregular roadside. The building coverage ratio of thirty-five percent suggeststhat structures will be on large open lots, but becausethere are no impermeable surface maximums, or interior landscapingrequirements, probably eachstructure will be surrounding by large parking lots. Even though Peabodydoes not have a minimum lot size like Dedham does,the setbackand front landscaping requirementssuggest a similarlyordered landscape. In addition, both Peabodyand Dedhamhave very generous parking requirements - four and half or five spaces per thousand square feet of retail Figure 1: PeabodyZoning Map, 2002 PeabodyMaster Plan space,suggesting a similar ratio betweenthe sizes Update. A: Design Development District; B: Highway Business District (Source: Peabody Exisitng Conditions and Analysis, of parking lots and buildings in both places. 2002)

Existing Conditions and Zoning 35 The Sauguscode is harder to make assumptions about. By some standards, the relative leniency, or intrinsic flexibility, of this code makes it more urban than either Peabodyor Dedham. The front set back is ten feet, a measurementthat would be equallyappropriate on NewburyStreet. 40 The small front setback,the relativelysmall minimum lot size, the lack of side setbacks, the high lot coverage ratio - seventy percent - and the relatively low parking ratio of three spots per thousand square feet of retail spacecould be almost construedas a New Urbanistdowntown plan. Theserequirements indicate a comparativedensity not possible under either Peabodyor Dedham'szoning. However,the lack of any landscapingrequirements, the relatively flexible setback, and the lack of any FARor other bulk regulationssuggest that this landscapecould just as easily be highly varied landscape with some properties looking completely different from others while still easilyfalling within the regulatory envelope. With this brief overview of how the dimensionalrequirements vary from town to town, the following section will explore how the actual conditions compare to what the various codes suggest.

II. Existing Conditions

Dedham: If you approachDedham from the North, you might drive down the VFW Parkway,a lovely shady, tree-lined road. The VFWends somewhere Figure 2 (above): Welcome to Dedham sign facing Route 1; Figure 3: Typical around West Roxbury,and drops the unsuspecting photographed by the author, April landscaping along Route I in Dedham (Source: driver onto Route 1. The change in landscapeis 2005). 36 almost breathtaking. Suddenly,the trees give way to parking lots and vast strip malls positioned perpendicularly tothe road, so that the only way a passing driver knows what is inside the mall is by the thirty foot signs that punctuateeach curb cut.

Beforelong, however, thestarkness of the roadside softens, and this is how the driver knows that she has entered Dedham. Perhapsif the same driver had passed through this part of town ten years ago, she never would have known that she had crossed a municipal boundary, but todaythere is an unmistakablechange in appearanceacross the Dedhamborder (see Figures1 and 2).

Almostevery property is fronted byawell-manicured fifteen to twenty foot strip, plantedwith deciduous trees (evenly spaced, of course) and evergreen shrubbery. Parkinglot interiors, even inthe most unlikely locations, are landscapedwith positively celebratorytrees and bushes. Eventhe most kitschy strip features are snuggled into neatly landscaped islands(see the DedhamMoose in Figure 5).

Dedham'sstrip has not alwaysbeen this way. Even the remnants of Route 1 Dedham'spast, however, show signsof conversion. Figure 4 shows the previous location of Pep Boys.While the structure is still unoccupied, thereis evidencethat the site is being transformed to match the surrounding properties. Transitional properties like this one Figure 4 (above): Newlandscaping in the lot of a currently unoccupiedproper- do not diminish the overall sense of order and ty; Figure 5: The DedhamMoose, nestled in his garden at the BugabooCreek Steakhouse;Figure 6: The EastManor at the entranceto Saugus(Source: regularity that Dedham's strip development photographedby the author, April 2005). Existing Conditions and Zoning 37 presents to passersby. Not only do almost all properties share common landscaping features, but there are no terribly irregular structures, no buildings encroachingon the road, no outrageous signageor building design, no vast, bleak parking lots. In short, it is the picture of manicured strip perfection.

Saugus: Saugus,while still unmistakablya strip, is of a completely different world. At the southern edge of Route 1, the roadsideis sparselypopulated with truck lots, parking lots, empty parcels, and small buildings housing a variety of uses. When entering Saugusfrom the south, the first famously eye catching building is an enormous Chinese pavilion set atop a perfectly oriented hillside, to give the driver an unblocked view, both of the building itself, and its sign, made of white stones on the approachinghillside (see Figure 6). As you get deeper into Saugus,the roadsidegrows denser and livelier. Motels, Dunkin' Donuts, and some Figure 7 (above): Typical stretch of Route 1 Saugus; Fig- full-fledged strip malls crop up on both sides of the ure 8: Saugus High School across Route 1 from the Square road. Morenotable than the structuresis the garish, Mall (Source: pho- 1 Mall; Figure 9 (below): The Square 1 colorful signage, visible in Figure 7, that adorns tographed by the author, May 2005). the highway Continuing northward up the road, a driver might not even notice another building after the EastManor until the Square1 Mall.

The mall, shown in Figure 9, is inwardly oriented. Shieldedfrom the street bya vast two-story parking structure, it is recognizable as a shopping mall only by the giant geometric sign announcing its identity to the street. This sectionof the road not only captures therange of design and density encapsulatedon Route1 Saugus,but also the range of uses. The white roof acrossthe street fromthe mall, in Figure 8, is the gymnasiumof a public high school. To the right of the school is a garage,and beyond that, a strip mall anchoredby a DSWShoe Warehouse.As you drive further downthe road, the variety of uses,building types, building orientation and placement on the lot becomes increasingly chaotic.

Onceyou pass the Square1 Mall, drive over a hill and through some woods, Saugus' most famous landmark pops up, brightly and cheerfully, on the west side of the road (see Figure 10). While this iconic business is perhaps the most recognizable feature of Saugus' Route 1 landscape, it also provides some very interesting clues about the dimensional regulationsalong the roadway. The three buildings shown in Figure 11 highlight one area of flexibility in the Sauguscode. The hilltop steakhousesits back only ten feet from Route 1; all of the parking for the restaurantis on the side and Figure 10: The Hilltop Steakhouse;Figure 11: The Hilltop Steakhouseand in the back of the lot. The neighboringMeinecke is neighboringproperties -- Note the inconsistentsetbacks (Source: photo- graphed by the author,April 2005). Existing Conditions and Zoning 39 set backabout forty feet from the roadway,with the entire front of the lot devoted to a paved parking lot. The third building, a restaurant called The BorderCafe, is set back evenfurther, perhapssixty feet from the property line. Though not entirely visible in this photograph, the area in front of the BorderCaf6 building is almost entirely paved, with a narrow strip of bushesat the faeade of the building. The irregularity of setbacks,building size, and orientation shown here continues throughout Saugus. The regulations are so minimal that most of the properties,even with all of their variation, fit comfortablywithin the written standards.

Peabody: Despite the comparative stringency of Peabody'szoning code its Route 1 environment is similar in characterto Saugus'. The most notable difference is the wide variety of uses in Peabody that outdoes even Saugus'cluttered roadside. In addition to the uses pictured in Figures 12 and 13, Peabodyis perhaps most famous for its Route 1 mobile home parks. These parks, while not permitted in the zoning districts surrounding Route 1, have been grandfathered as they have been a part of Peabody'slandscape for longer than the code. For the mostpart, the parks extend directly up to the roadside (seeFigure 14). However,as in Saugus,the edge of the road is not neatly defined bydevelopment everywhere. Buildings built almost to the road's edge are neighbored by properties with large parking lots or other large setbacks in Figures 12 and 13 (top): Variety of Setbacksand uses on Route 1 Peabody; Figure front of them (seeFigure 15). 14: Pine Grove Mobile Home Park, Peabody(Source: photographed by the author, April 2005). Whereasin Saugus,the dimensional requirements are so minimal the irregularity of development might be expected, Peabody's dimensional requirements are significantly stricter, stipulating clear setback and landscaping requirements not found in the Sauguscode. Developmenton both sides of the road looks alike eventhough they are located in two different districts (HBand DDD)with different dimensional requirements. The overall prevalenceof nonconformingproperties in Peabody differentiates it significantly from Dedham and Saugus, eventhough it shares some features with both towns.

This relatively simple comparison between the written code and the built landscape already highlights significant differences from town to town. It also shows that the relationship between zoning and strip is not as simple as Kunstler's writings from the previouschapter might suggest. The following section examinesthe way eachtown Figure 15: PeabodyCosto parkinglot photographed fromRoute I implements its zoning code both to explain some differentiates the strips from each other is zoning of the variation in how well build outs match the implementation. The relationship betweenzoning zoning and to illustrate another layerof complexity and the built environment is largely determined by that servesto differentiate one town's strip from how specific requirementsare enforced. another's. Notsurprisingly, given the regularityofits landscape, IV. ZoningImplementation Dedhamhas the most stringent approvalsprocess for developmentsin their highwaybusiness district. While the preceding sections illustrate that there Thetown requiresthat all site plansfor development is variation in how precisely each town's built out and redevelopmentprojects are submitted to the strip resembles the image promulgated by its both the planning board and a design review board dimensional requirements,a third key feature that for approval. The design reviewprocess is advisory Existing Conditions and Zoning 41 for the planning board, but it is explicitly stated in be the Building Inspector...shall administer and 4 Dedham's code that enforce the provisions of this By-Law."1 Within this model, there is no leeway for a planning "the fact that a proposed project complies board, city council, or other town representative with all specific requirements and purposes to assert a vision beyond what is encapsulated in set forth herein shall not create a presumption the requirements of the by-law. Mary Carfagna, that the project is in fact compatible with Chair of the Saugus Planning Board stated that any surrounding land uses, and in itself shall not site review by the planning board is "really very be sufficient to justify the granting of any cursory-its's about whether they've got sign posts application. in the right place," and it is done in conjunction with the town Zoning Enforcement Officer, Fred In other words, mere compliance with the letter of Berroni.44 Carfagna also noted that the Planning the law in Dedham will not necessarily guarantee Board is much more involved with site plan review approval. for subdivision plans, and that they really do not have any control over areas like Route 1 that are Through this highlydiscretionary approvals process, already "substantially built out."45 anchored to the planning and design review board, the town of Dedham is able to not only ensure It is important to keep in mind that the Dedham compliance with its regulations, but also to vet strip was also built out when the current zoning projects that do not match with their vision for their requirements were adopted, but they have been highway district. Becausethe boards havethe liberty able to capture the zoning changes as the properties to consider ancillary design issues such as character, have been redeveloped. The comparative lack of scale, site layout, and vegetation, they have more discretionary control in Saugus is evident in the room to negotiate with developers in order to bring Saugus strip. As previously noted, the Saugus proposed projects into harmony with the town's code provides developers with a lot of room to vision and with the surrounding properties. Even maneuver, by providing for a full range of possible without the stringent requirements in Dedham's sizes, shapes, placement, and designs that might code, the review process has the power to create fit within the prescribed envelope. Whereas the Dedham's consistent, manicured landscape. Dedham review process might ultimately produce Dedham's landscape in Saugus' code, Saugus' Neither Saugus nor Peabody has as strong a site review process is unlikely to be able to proactively review process as Dedham. In Saugus, the code shape development in any direction. states that "a Zoning Enforcement Officer, who may Peabodysimilarly relies on its building inspector a different regulatory strategy for its strip that to do the site plan review in its Highway Business only begins to unearth why Dedhamwas able to District. This leaves both Peabodyplanners and mobilize sweepingcode changesthat haveactually the PeabodyPlanning Board with very little control been effective, why Peabodywas not, and why beyondwhat is written in the zoning. Peabodyhas, Saugushasn't even tried. The next chapter will however,established a site plan review processin begin to explain this variation by examining the its DesignedDevelopment District (DDD). The DDD role that perceivedidentity of the strip has played actuallyestablished a newauthority, the Community in determining how eachtown useszoning. DevelopmentAuthority, who will be advisedby the staff of the Community DevelopmentDepartment, to administer site plan reviewfor project with the District.46 Eventhough the DDD was established over a decade ago, there have not been many developments in the district. The developments that have occurred, however, have incorporated much of the new landscapingcriteria and exhibit the influenceof the Authority. The Peabodystrip is in transition with its zoning like Dedham and landscapelike Saugus. This transitional naturewill explored further in Chapter4.

VI. Conclusion

These three case study strips provide evidence that not all strips are alike. Eachtown has a very different approach to zoning: Dedham regulates extensivelyand has a discretionaryreview process to ensurethat the town has control over the image of the road; Saugusregulates very little, and has no discretionarycontrol over by-right developmentsin their strip; Peabody'sstrip is visibly in transition as it hangs between grandfathered properties and updated zoning in the DDD. Eachtown has ExistingConditions and Zoning 43 44 Chapter 5: The Role of PerceivedIdentity

The one thing people immediately react to is the visual environment. If you said to people what do youthink about Saugus, and all they would think of was Route 1 - they wouldn't know that it is actually a lovely community. This road is people's number one perception of the town. - Dan Shapiro, Former Planning Board Chair, Town of Dedham.48

1. Introduction

As discussedin Chapter 3, the built environments approach to regulating Route 1 through zoning. along Route 1 in Dedham, Saugus, andPeabody The table illustrates a clearcorrelation betweenthe vary significantly in appearanceand in how they content of the perception and the method of the are regulated. This chapter compareshow town zoning approach. A comprehensivesummary of officials and regulators in eachtown perceiveRoute my findings from my primary sourcecan be found 1 and exploreshow these attitudescontribute to the in Appendix B. The remainder of this chapterwill variationsdiscussed in Chapter3. As one element developmore thorough narrativesabout the way that within the complicated relationship of road and town officials and regulators perceivethe identity town, the way that towns view their existing strips of Route 1 through their town, how pervasivetheir has a large impact on how they choose to regulate attitudes are in the town, and how those attitudes future strip developmentand redevelopment.The have informed decisionsabout how the towns use following three case studies were developed out zoning to regulate strip development. of conversationswith town officials and planners, examination of municipal planning documents, At the time that Dedhamoverhauled their zoning and local press coverageabout developmentalong code, several key planning board membersand Route 1. public officials viewed Route 1 as central part of Dedhamthat reflected badly on the quality of the The summary table in Figure 1 highlights the town. As a result, this group of plannerscreated a connection betweenthe overall perceptionsabout new zoning codethat proactivelytook control over Route1 illustrated throughout the primary sources Route 1 roadside developmentthrough both the that I investigatedand eachtown's current dimensional regulations and implementationtools not viewed as an appropriate tool for intervention. Town planners and officials focus their regulatory Developmentphysically Intensifieddimensional energy on areasthat more centrally represent the unattractive, representinga requirementsand design town's identity, resulting in strip zoning that does negativeimpression of the reviewto improve qualityof the town. appearanceof development not have strong teeth, and that does not push and gain more municipal roadside environmenttowards anything otherthan control over site design. it already is.

Roadis not part of the town; No comprehensivestrategy Peabodysits betweenthe two extremesrepresented may give an inaccurate using to control it for zoning by Dedhamand Saugus. Town planners and town representationof town Route1 development. documentsindicate that Route1 is viewedas part of development, but it is not a central part of the town's the town that needsto be dealt with, and the zoning identity. regulations are reflective of this recognition. But, unlike Dedham,Peabody has focused on upgrading Developmentis comprised Creatednew use district uses rather than making physical improvements bymany marginaluses which that allows office park to existing development. In a way, Peabody's do not reflect the quality of developmentand higher the town, and do not reflect end useswith more approach is to un-strip their strip by converting the imagePeabody envisions intensivesite review it to a different typology of development. This for Route1. process. strategy, while wholly different, is nevertheless deeply rooted in the way that town officials and Table1: Summary table illustrating overall perceptions of publicofficials in each regulators perceivethe identity of what Route 1 is town,and the corresponding zoningapproaches on Route1. and what it could be.

discussedin the previouschapter. II. Dedham

In Saugus, a distinct air of helplessnessabout Like various towns of its scale and resources, the state of Route 1 permeatestown regulatory Dedhamdid not keep a planner on staff for many bodies. Most sources indicate that, other than years and was therefore predominantly governed being a significant tax generator,Route 1 is not an by an outmoded plan and zoning code. Before an important part of the town's identity. Instead,it is updated plan was adopted bythe Town of Dedham a place to be avoided in favor of the town's more in 1996,all newdevelopment was subjectto a vision picturesquecenter and natural resources. Because laid out 30 years earlier in the 1966 master plan. Route1 is viewed as a separate place, zoning is As part of the planning process that shaped the new master plan and accompanyingregulations, a far exceededthe needsof the retailers.47 distinct trend emergedwhich enabled Dedhamto build an effective regulatorysystem for the Route1 A number of factors, including the availability of commercialzone. A group of committed regulators state funding for planning, led the town to initiate worked very hard to convincethe town that Route1 an effort to revise their ancient plan. The process wasa negativereflection of the townas a whole,and of updating the zoning code and the master that it neededto be consideredas part of the town, plan began in 1991. The first public meeting for rather than a peripheral zone. This movementto visioning was held in Novemberof 1992. A survey incorporateRoute 1 into Dedhamrepresents a shift distributed at this meeting asked citizens, among in how town planners and officials perceivedthe other things, to identify major areas of concern. identity of Route 1, and led to the developmentof The participating residents identified the Route I a new set of zoning regulationsthat was designed corridor as "the most important item to deal with to make Route 1 Dedhama better reflection of the in the Master Plan."48 Evenat the very beginningof town. The connectionbetween the perceptionsof the planning process,there wasa consensusamong town regulatorsand the subsequentzoning changes participantsthat Route 1 neededto be dealt with. is evidencedby the statementsof the plannersand regulators themselves and the language of town In addition to the citizens' commitmentapparent planningdocuments. (Summary analysis of Dedham from the beginning,there wasa clear pushfrom the sources,including interviewcontent, can be viewed municipal side to prioritize Route 1. PeterZahka in Appendix B). has servedon the planning board and the Boardof Selectmen. In 1992, Zahka founded the Dedham Much of the Route 1 landscapein Dedham was Civic Pride Committeewhose primary concernwas directly shaped by an attempt to control the scale advocatingfor aesthetic improvementthroughout of development by demanding an extremely the town. "Let's faceit," Zahka says, Route 1 "is high parking ratio. According to Dedham'stown manypeople's view of Dedham."Zahka's perception planner,Arthur Noonan,the original codestipulated that Route 1 negatively reflected the character an unusually high ratio of five parking spots per of the town to passersbyon the road led him to thousand feet of retail. The drafters of this code push the town to considerRoute 1 as a legitimate thought that this ratio would limit building size by part of Dedham, the Committee's early initiatives requiring that a high percentageof eachindividual were focusedon making sure the new master plan lot would need to be devoted to parking. The respondedto their aestheticconcerns. 4 9 actual result of using this "blunt instrument" was big buildingswith vast, over-sizedparking lots that The statedpriorities of the communitymembers and TheRole of PerceivedIdentity 47 the attitudes of public officials like Zahka indicate Most of these goals are directed specifically at that there was a core of individuals participating in dealingwith developmenton Route1, and the more the planning processwho felt strongly that Route1 genericgoals havevery strong ramificationsfor the Dedhamwas a part of the town that reflected badly Route1 environment.The clear interest in improving on the rest of the town, and neededto be addressed Route1 is summarizedin the master plan itself. The through the new master plan. As a result of the vision statement in the plan's introduction states pressuresfrom Zahkaand participatingcommunity the goal of "improved conditionsalong the Route members,a communityvision coalescedaround the I corridor so that traffic is handledmore effectively ideaof improving Route1. A documentdistributed and the Corridor more positivelycontributes to both at a public meetingheld beforethe planwas adopted the town's economicbase and the aestheticsof the informed the town at large about the proposed community"(bold text is original).5 0 In addition to zoning changes. This document highlighted five an interest in improving the road generically, the primary "Community Goals as developed in the plan shows explicit evidence that the town had MasterPlan:" begun to internalize Route 1 as part of its central identity: e "Make the characterof Route 1 commercial uses more compatible with the overall "Peoplewho only know Dedham from their character of the town rather than have the trip along Route 1 have a very negative Route1 corridor define the town. impression of the town. The objective of - Locateand designdevelopment in sucha way the Master Planis to make the characterof as to encouragepedestrian movement and Route 1 more compatible with the overall transit use and thereby minimize vehicular characterof the town rather than have the traffic impacts. Route 1 corridor define the characterof the " Maintainthe economicand job diversity and town.""i revitalize Route 1 by attracting desirable businessesto an upgradedenvironment. Furthermore,the plan suggeststhat once the town " Improve conditions along Route 1 corridor implementsthe proposedchanges, "people traveling to achievea smoothertraffic flow, creating Route 1 will know they haveentered Dedhamand a positive effect on the town's circulation, that the Town takes pride in its appearance."s2 economicbase, and appearance. " Reduce the paved areas dedicated to The proposed changes in the plan, which stem movementand storage(parking) of cars." from directly from the desire to convert Route 1 into a landscapethat better reflects the quality of the town, includea virtual overhaul of the town's developmentalong theroad. zoning code. The recommendedzoning changes, including the stringent landscapingrequirements, Shapiro's new dimensional requirementswere not new setback minimums, new lot coverage the only updatesto the codethat resultedfrom this percentages,and newparking ratios, wereadopted change in attitude about Route 1. As a result of unanimously by town meeting in 1995.53 The ease the confidence in the strength and validity of the with which the zoning changeswere adopted is due Master Plan vision the town also instituted new in part to the significant amount of work the master implementation channelswhich strengthened the plan committee put into developing consensus site plan reviewprocess as introducedin Chapter3. around thevision behindthe zoning changes. The 1995 zoning amendmentsincluded new Minor and MajorSite PlanReview processes. As would be Further evidence that the zoning changes were expected,in order for approval to be granted both driven by this change in the perceived identity review tracks require material compliancewith use of Route 1 from a back yardto an entry point to and dimensionalrequirements presented earlier in Dedham is divulged by former planning board the code. However,both reviewtracks also provide memberDan Shapiro. Shapiro,who shared Zahka's for a degree of subjectivejudgment on the part of perceptionsabout the identity of Route1, wrote the the PlanningBoard by suggestingthat, as stated in first versionof the zoning amendmentsin response the caseof Major Site PlanReview, to his biggest concernabout the road, "the visual environment." The amendments he proposed "the Planning Board shall...make a written included most of the dimensional requirements finding whether the site plan as a whole discussedin Chapter 3.5 In a letter to the Town substantially conform to the intent of the meeting in 1993, the PlanningBoard encouraged by-law and proposes an appropriate and the governing body to adopt some of the more beneficial developmentof the site."57 urgent zoning changesas expediently as possible so as maintain momentum and prevent new By explicitly stating that the Planning Board may developmentthat did not complywith the goals of deny an application solely on the basis of not the new plan." Shapiro,the author of the original complying with the "intent" of the regulation, the version of the zoning amendmentsnotes that the code implies that a subjective assessmentof the other planningboard membersagreed that Route1 project under review is an appropriate,and in fact neededto be a better reflection of the identity of the required, part of the approval ordenial process. town, and they supportedhis effort to use zoning as a meansof better controlling the appearanceof The 1995 Annual Town Meeting also authorized The Roleof PerceivedIdentity 49 the creationof a new DesignReview Advisory Board The next two towns share Dedham's awareness (DRAB)to establish design guidelines "for areas of that the image of Route 1 is not representativeof Town havingdifferentvisual and functional character the quality of their town, but in neither casedo the and to review specific categories of development town representativesindicate that they view Route and signage,"and to serveas "a community resource 1 as a central part of their town's identity. While providing information, recommendations and Saugusand Peabodyperceive Route 1 differently, professionaldesign reviewfor individual projects." their perceptions have had profound impacts Whilethe reviewBoard does not havethe legislative on how each town uses zoning to regulate their authority to approveor deny projects,it prepareda roadsides. Community Design Handbookwhich among other things "provides design objectives to applicants" Ill. Saugus preparingto apply for approvalfrom severalboards and agenciesincluding the PlanningBoard and the The strength of vision and clarity of purposefound 58 Zoning Board of Appeals. The DRAB,therefore, amongstthe policy-makersand enforcersin Dedham providesa unified set of standardthat the Planning is not visible in Saugus. While there have been Board and Zoning Board of Appeals may use as some attempts to gain better control over Route 1 guidelines in there decision-making process. development,there has never been a coordinated According to some officials, the DRABhas "really effort of zoning, or other municipal tools, to gain taken control of the visual environment."5 9 that control. Thefollowing sectionwill illustratethat the prevalenceof piecemeal,ad-hoc planning, and Ultimately, the overarching perception that the the resultant minimal zoning along Route I stems image of Route 1 Dedhamwas not representative from a prevailingattitude among town officials and of the town as whole, but that it should be, drove regulatorsthat Routeis not really a part of Saugus. many of the zoning changesthat have resulted in Not only is this attitude and its connectionto zoning the new Dedhamstrip. Whetheror not drivers on decisionsevidenced by the officials themselves,but the road view these changesas "improvements," also in the planning documentsthey produce, and the Dedhamcase illustrates a clear link between in local press coverageabout Route 1 in Dedham. the perceivedidentity of the strip and the zoning (For summaryanalysis, including interviewcontent, that controls it. The actualzoning codewas written pleasesee Appendix B). and supported by individualswhose priorities and perceptionsabout Route1 are clearly evident in the One attempt to developa strategy for Route I was nature and languageof the new requirements. initiated by then SelectmenMichael Kelleher(also the Manager of the Square 1 Mall) in 2003. He proposedcreating an economic developmentplan member and Chairmanof the Route 1 Traffic and for SaugusRoute 1, the goal which would be to Safety Study Committee. Moore provides another identify potential betteruses for Route 1 and then exampleof an off-course attempt to steer Route I actively work to attract the identified businesses developmentin a new direction. In his introduction to the Route 1 area. A BostonGlobe article about to the final study reportMoore notes that "in the the committee quotes Kelleher as suggesting that absenceof any initiative on the community's part, Route 1 Saugusis highway projectsto the North and South of Saugus would shapeour destiny bydefault." In addition to "'great neighborhood community...A lot sensing a lack of coherent action surrounding the of things that happen on Route 1 have an roadway,Moore expresseshis feeling that, at least effect on those neighborhoods and the from a transportation perspective,Route 1 is part community.' Neighbors on the committee of a "whole picture of local access,mobility, [that] could offer somevaluable insights into what relates to the larger quality of life issues"with in businessesare neededon Route 1."60 the town.63

Following Kelleher's proposal, Selectmen Moore's 2004 Traffic and Safetyreport presentsa Chairwoman Janette Fasano supported the handful of suggestionsfor improving the roadway committee becauseshe felt it "could help attract appearanceand developmentthrough emphasison businessesthat 'could improvethe town's image.'61 alternative transit options that would lighten the Kellehersucceeded in capturing the imaginationof traffic flow by diverting drivers onto other forms severalkey public servantsin Saugusand garnered of transportation. In addition, the report suggests significant support for his effort to make Route 1 overhauling land use regulations to encourage development of central importance to the town. mixed-usepedestrian scale development along the However, about a year before this article was corridor, and better enforcementof subdivisionby- written, Kelleherhad beenarrested for driving while lawsthat prohibit dead-endstreets off Route 1.64 intoxicated (on Route 1), causing a minor scandal in Saugus.2 One month after proposing the Route While most of Moore's suggestionsare reasonable 1 EconomicDevelopment Committee, he lost his as part of a comprehensiveplan for improving the bid for reelectionto the Board of Selectmen,and area, the report lacks the specificity to actually the idea died with the next administration. promoteimplementation of the ideaspresented, and makesno links to current zoning, or to the existing A second champion of the cause of Route 1 planning board or town meeting decision-makers. improvementis Fred Moore,Saugus Town Meeting Additionally, the report ends with a proposal to The Roleof PerceivedIdentity 51 build a second-storydeck over the current roadway Kelleher'sapproach of creating new organizations which would extend to the surrounding buildings, andoperating outsideof existing municipaldecision- essentiallycreating a second-storystreet that would making channels. For instance,the Square I mall, be for the exclusive use of pedestriansand local discussedin chapter 3, was not originally planned traffic. The ground-floor roadwaywould service to look the way it doestoday. The original site plan through traffic, in what will haveessentially become containedacres and acres of surfaceparking rather atunnel. Theplan, expressed in the three-paragraph than the existing structured lot. However,in order "Summary"at the end of the report, is either brilliant to createflat enoughland forthe surfacelot, the mall or absurd. Eitherway, the brevity and generalityof developers,New EnglandRealty Trust, would have the description serve only to underminethe utility had to blast through the substantialhill at the back of the other potentially achievableideas presented of the lot (shown in Figure 1). Mall neighbors, in a 65 in the body of the report. movementspear-headed by Town-Meeting Member, Janet Leuci,formed a group called NO BLAST,and Both the attempts of Michael Kelleher and Fred filed suit againstthe developersto preventmonths of Moore illustrate the fringe nature of local attempts noisy blasting. The current site plan and structured to improve the Route 1 environment. While each lot were the result of negotiations between NO took a very different approach to designing an BLASTand New England Realty Trust.66 Because improvementstrategy, Kelleher and Moore both feel the selectmentypically "would give a specialpermit that improvementsto the roadwill serveto improve to allow anything" on Route 1, New EnglandRealty the image and the identity of the town as a whole. Trust had no trouble getting a permit for the new, Their visions, however,did not successfullycapture unusual,development. 67 the Town Meeting, the Boardof Selectmen,or the Planning Board. Moore and Kelleher both opted NOBLAST's efforts with the Square1 Mall, together to create new committees, rather than operating with the work of Moore and Kelleher, exemplify though existing channelsfor controlling land use the piecemeal, decentralized nature of efforts to and land development-namely the town's zoning improve Route 1. This pattern of activism and by-law. Their desire to create new channels for decentralizationstems from an attitude, evidenced action illustrates a lack of faith both in municipal byall of the officials interviewedfor this thesis,that planning and in zoning as an adequate meansof Route 1 is not in fact a part of Saugus,but rather controlling the Route 1 environment. a detachedarea that happensto pass through the town (seeAppendix B for interview summaries). Not all attempts to implement changes on Route I have been failures, but they all share Moore and Ellen Burns, former planning board chair and founding member of NO BLAST,explains this consistentfailure to use zoning to makeoverarching changes along Route 1 in place of these singular efforts. She says that no one, even those trying hardest to improve Route 1, ever thought to use zoning because

"we think [Route 1 is] something outside the town. It splits us in half, it runs through, but we don't really think of it as part of the town of Saugus. It has been there for so long, and it's always been a highway with some businesses."68

All of the Saugus planning officials interviewed Figure 1: This photo of the Square 1 Mall shows the hill behind the front entrance for this thesis expressed a similar sense of of the Mall (Source:photographed by author, April 2005). disconnectionbetween the image of the road and is altering the courseof developmentalong Route the identity of the town. Mary Carfagna,current 1 not a priority, but the community does not even chair of the Planning Board "tries to avoid [Route consider the roadside environmentto be a part of 11-especially on the weekends" and along with the town. most other Saugusresidents she knows, does not frequent the businessesalong Route1 unlessthere The comments of Burns, Carfagna and Delios, 69 is no alternative. Carfagna'sbehavior highlights a (summarized more fully in Appendix B) not only sensethat while Route 1 developmentis not ideal, highlight the perceivedidentity separationbetween it is an ignorable part of Saugus. Additionally, the town and the road, but also illustrate that Jean Delios, the former Director of Community these perceptionsdirectly contributeto the lack of Development in Saugus, noted that zoning had interest in using zoning as a tool to control Route not been used as tool to alter the appearanceof 1 development. This attitude is similarly visible in developmentalong Route1 because"the community Saugus'municipal planningdocuments. The town [hasbeen] content withthe developmenthappening recentlytook advantageof the ExecutiveOrder 418 along [there]. They are much moreconcerned with which provides state funding for local community 7 0 the developmenthappening in the town"' (italics development plan creation. The State provided added). Delios' comments indicate that not only Sauguswith $30,000 to create visions, goals and The Role of Perceived Identity 5- strategies in four topic areas including Economic goals. The two points selected by more than half of Development and Transportation. The resulting the participants as their top priorities were to make Community Development Plan was informed by a neighborhood areas more pedestrian friendly and substantial public process, and was directed by the to diversify the economic base overall. Updating Saugus Community Development Plan Committee, zoning by-laws to encourage more "appropriate" comprised of Saugus officials and residents. businesses received only three votes of seventy- nine; Encouraging diverse mobility options (biking, A close examination of the document reflects the walking, transit) via infrastructure development disconnect between the identity of Route 1 and the and concentrated mixed use land development identity of the rest of the town, expressed by Burns. received only one vote, even though this goal is In language that closely mirrors the sentiment that ostensibly a more proactive way of stating the first propelled Dedham to reinvent its zoning code, the two goals. Finally, the creation of an economic opening of the economic development chapter development committee, which might actually be states: able to oversee the creation of a vision plan for the Route 1 commercial area, also received only one "Saugus residents expressed appreciation vote as a top priority for town resources. for such assets as the woodlands of the Breakheart Reservationand the community's While the town has invested in zoning changes to "small town" feel. Yet for most residents of control development in other areas for purposes neighboring communities, Saugus' image is such as wetland and flood plain, the overall lack much more likely to be the town's intensely of interest in using zoning to control Route 1 developed Route 1 retail corridor. The development falls as a low priority in the town continuous string of commercial properties because, as the community plan shows, the road is along the highwayis a retail and entertainment not seen as a central town priority for residents. center for communities north of Boston, and dominates the Sauguseconomy." 71 The sense that Route 1 Saugus is not really part of Saugus has been evident in planning decisions Although the acknowledgement that Route 1 does for decades. Almost ten years ago, then Planning not accurately represent the character of the town to Board Chair Ellen Burns discussed a new zoning the outside world is expressly stated in the opening provision that relegated adult book stores to Route passage of the economic development chapter, 1. "We can't fight it," Burns told the Boston Globe interest in altering the character of Route 1 barely in 1997, "so we might as well be prepared for it."72 registers within the stated economic development Burn's comments, and the Saugus Planning Board's unanimous decision to adopt the new zoning IV. Peabody restriction illustrates a prevailing attitude that, not only is Route 1 a separate part of the town, but it Lying somewhere between the aggressive stance is also a convenient dump site for all undesirable of Dedham and the piecemeal approach in Saugus, and unattractive uses. This attitude, present in Peabody's strip is neither intensely regulated nor the Community Development Plan and highlighted municipally ignored. As evidenced in Chapter 3, there by Carfagna and Delios permeates the planning is inconsistency between the zoning requirements decision-makers, and has inhibited any movement governing development along the road and the to make changes along Route 1. As a result, the form of development that actually exists there. The proposals to upgrade Route I that have surfaced evidence both from town planners and planning have not proceeded through existing decision- documents shows that Route 1 Peabody is viewed making channels that might lead to zoning changes, as an integral part of the City landscape, though but have surfaced through independent committees not necessarily a nice part because of the marginal or individuals. uses located on the road. This attitude has resulted in zoning changes, but the resulting regulation has As a result of the attitude so clearly presented by focused on use changes rather than dimensional EllenBurns that Route 1 is really not a part of Saugus, changes, and therefore has not been as visible, or the town has never been able to translate the layers as large scale as the changes in Dedham. (Summary of local distaste for the visual environment of Route analysis of interviews, planning documents and 1 into comprehensive zoning strategy. Perhaps the local press can be found in Appendix B.) chaotic, yet memorable roadside that has resulted from the limited zoning control has, in a Kevin In 2002, Peabody published a new Master Plan, Lynchianway, augmented the dissociation of Route accompanied by a thorough Existing Conditions 1 development from the more orderly suburban and Trends Analysis Report. The pair of documents development that characterizes the rest of Saugus. provides considerable insight into how at least the That notwithstanding, the perception on the part authors of the report, if not the larger community, of town planners and regulators that Route 1 is viewed Route 1 at the time the documents were separate from the Town of Saugus, has resulted in written. The Existing Conditions Report notes that no attempts to use zoning to implement physical changes in Route I development. "the character of Route 1 in part reflects the highway's previous use as the region's primary north-south route linking Boston to coastal New Hampshire and Maine. This is The Roleof PerceivedIdentity 55 seenin the gas stations, restaurantsand the unlike in Saugus,views Route 1 as a place that remainingmotels."1 3 can ultimately be controlled by planning efforts. Additionally, Mike Parquette, Assistant Director However, the report notes that since Route 95 for Community and Economic Development in captured much of that north-south traffic, "older Peabody, noted that priority in the Community uses declined," and that "over time, some less DevelopmentDepartment is to "upgrade some of desirable uses were relegated to this stretch of the marginal uses" along Route 1.76 Like Viola's highway." Finally, the report goes on to suggest comments, Parquette's identification of marginal that "there are indications that the next phase of usessuggests a clear perceptionamong regulators land reusealong Route 1 has begun. Among these and plannerthat the Route1 areais not fulfilling its are the new business-orientedhotels located at the potentialfor the City. In 1990, Peabodyestablished 74 south end of Route I nearthe 128 interchange." a new zoning district, the Design Development This passagehighlights two important features of District (DDD) along Route 1 to address some of Peabody'srelationship with Route 1: firstly, town these concerns. regulators are aware that the road has captured some of the town's "less desirable" development; In 1990, Peabody updated its master plan, and and secondly,the passageillustrates a sense that as part of that process the city council voted to Route 1 developmentis slowly migrating towards adopt a new DesignedDevelopment District (DDD) an imagethat Peabodywants for the road. to address some of these concerns. This district converted what had been a highway business Despite the vaguely passiveoptimism expressed district into a new district targeted at attracting in the recent report, Joe Viola, staff liaison to the high end office park uses. According to the 1991 PlanningBoard in PeabodyCommunity Development Master Plan update, "the purpose of the City's Department, noted that most members of the regulationsin [the DDD]will be to set the stagefor planning board would not "say that Route 1 is fine the most productive use of" Route 1.77 Not only the way it is." While the same vague sentiment would this involve prioritizing higher end uses,but of dissatisfaction with Route 1 development also creatinga more attractive edge to the strip and was evident in Saugus,Viola also noted that the a better interface with surrounding developments. Community Development Department "think[s] In addition the Master Plannotes that the "Citywill there is lots of room for improvement in many considerproviding incentivesto developmentsthat areas with a more consistent push toward land incorporate elements that meet needs not being 75 use planning as a driving force." This comment met elsewherein the city, for example,apartments suggeststhat the planningdepartment in Peabody, designedalong with retail space."78 This particular feature highlights that the authors of the DDD In other words, the fact that Route 1 looks the way it saw Route 1 as a place that neededto becomean does, and has the reputation that it does, prevents integral part of the City of Peabody. industrial or office park developersfrom locating there; other kinds of businesses,however, cannot Like the highway businessdistrict in Dedham,the build within the envelopeof large lots and extensive DDDis an exampleof a zoning changedesigned to open space designate by the DDD. Despite this improvethe highwaystrip becauseof a prevailing conflict, Peabodyofficials have maintained their attitude amongtown officials and plannersthat the insistencethat permits for new developmentin the roadneeded to be a better reflectionof the character DDDbe reservedfor higher and better uses. and values of the town in which it is located. Unlike Dedham, however, the master plan clearly Severalyears ago, a developer looking to locate a emphasizesan overriding attitude that the Route gas station in the DDDapproached theCity Council 1 landscapeneeds to be improved through better with a site plan that Parquettedescribed as "very zoned use designations in order to better reflect well planned, well landscaped,"but the plan was the valuesand the characterof the City of Peabody, turned down becauseit did not fit into the use rather than dimensionalregulations to make more designations for in that district.8 0 According Joe attractiveproperties. The choiceto adopt a newuse Viola, the specialpermit was denied becauseit district rather than to focus exclusivelyon physical changeswas born out of a city-wideperception that "'...did not meet a local desirable need.' it is the usesnot the appearanceof Route1 that are In short, the council felt that there are the problem. However,relying on use changeshas numerous servicestations located on Rt. 1, not producedmuch visible change in the district and that by granting a [specialpermit] for a sincethe DDDwas adopted. low-enduse such as a gas station theywould be perpetuatingthe kind of low-enduse that Partly, Parquetteattributes this failure to the way traditionally locate on Rt. 1, especiallysince the zoning waswritten. He notes that the use wasin the Designated Development District, which is supposedto be for higher- "Business owners looking to relocate to end uses that meet the city's stated goal Peabodycomplain that the [DDD]regulations of creating a high quality employment 81 are too strict - businesses that want to be center." on Route 1 don't want thosestandards, and industrial parks that might not mind the The gas station story highlights a conflict between standardsdon't want to be on Route 1."79 the desire to locate higher end uses along the TheRole of PerceivedIdentity 57 roadway and the lack of a market for such high uses and better appearancesare compoundedby end uses along a roadwaycurrently crammedwith the fact that there are "not a lot of teeth [within the 8 relatively unattractive development. Parquette current code]."3 The towns' emphasison finding pointed to this conflict as being largely responsible "higher and better uses,"that resulted in the DDD, for the fact that very few developments have has limited the use of zoning as a tool for changing occurredwithin the DDD- so few "sincethe zoning the appearanceof the existing developmentalong designation changed [that] the City is considering the roadway. However,the attitudes about Route 82 changing it." 1 expressedto some degree in both master plans, and Viola's assertion that there is will to improve Evenwhile the concernfor higher and better uses the image of Route 1 for the sake of the City, it is has dominated,and perhapsstymied development likely the existing zoning will eventually have its with the DDD, Peabodyhas channeled some of intended effects. the desire for Route 1 improvement into the new dimensionalrequirements in the highway business Eventhough, in Peabody,the mandateto include district describedin Chapter3. The changes,also Route 1 as a central part of Peabodyis not as part of the zoning changesassociated with the 1990 crystalline as it is was in Dedham,there is a clear master plan significantly increasedthe regulations sense the City does view Route 1 as a place that in the highway business district, but during this should be better integrated with the city. Unlike time, there havebeen few massiveredevelopments in Dedham, however,the central driving force for in the area that would require properties to changing the landscape has been through use come into compliance with the new regulations. designationsratherthan dimensional requirements. However,as properties slowly redevelopover time, The commentsof both Parquetteand Viola, and the it is likely that these new regulationswill become actionsof the City Council indicate that higher and more and more evident in the Route I landscape. better useswill help to align Route 1 development Also, Parquetteand Viola both noted that the City with the imageof Peabodyrather than simply better is currently consideringa stronger review process looking facilities. for the highway businessdistrict to assurethat as existing properties redevelop,they will come into TheDDD was a direct outcomeof this perceptionthat compliancewith the City's vision for an improved it wasthe usesthat makeRoute 1 unattractiverather Route 1. than the layout of specificproperties. However,the relianceon use designationrather than dimensional As it is, however, the conflicting attitudes about requirementsfor inspiring change in the area pins Route 1, and the conflicting priorities for better successonto the viability of the desired uses-in this case office development-which is subject to born out of these attitudes has prioritized higher the ups anddowns of the real estate market, and and better uses for the road over better-looking the market impact of the location. Nevertheless, developments. despite the complications that arose from relying on use changesrather thandimensional changes, there is a clear link in Peabody betweenthe perceptionon the part of city plannersand officials that Route 1 is a part of Peabodyand should be a better reflection of the image Peabodywants to project and the decisionsthe town has madeabout how to use zoning.

V. Conclusion

In summary, the way that these cities and towns view their strips is an indicatorfor how they will use zoning to regulate it. In Dedham,Route 1 is viewed as being a part of the town. Whenthe town initiated a master planning process,the image of the road emerged as being of central importance, and the resulting zoning reflectedthose priorities bystrictly regulating the design of future developmentsand redevelopments.Saugus has yet to make a strong identity link betweentown and road. Becausemost of the town bodiesthat are involvedin planningview Route 1 as an external feature, they havenot even considered using zoning as a tool to changethe way developmenton the road looks or functions. And finally Peabody,like Dedham, sees Route 1 as a part of the town. But it is the uses on the road rather than the appearanceof the road that has emergedas the driving priority for improving Route 1 development. The zoning that has been The Roleof PerceivedIdentity 59 60 Chapter 6: Conclusion

The strip, by its very nature, is not a local is a strip district that has been uniformly improved phenomenon:strip developmentis designedto be accordingto the standardsset forth in the code. to be familiar everywhere;it is designed to attract a regional market;it is designed to be seenfrom Saugushas not madethe samelink betweenimage an automobile moving quickly from one place to and identity. While it has experienced a series another. In claiming that all strips are the same of attempts to improve Route 1, both planning due to these characteristics, however, critics officials and planning documents illustrate that miss the subtlety of each municipality's unique Route 1 is still primarily viewed as a peripheral regulatory relationship with its strip development. issue - not a central planning concern that each The three case studies presented here highlight town has control over. Sauguszoning code reflect the differences betweenthree strips on the same this lack of concern; a very lax code and an easy highway: each town perceivesthe identity of its appeals processthat consistentlygrants variances strip differently, and these perceptions have lead for physical non-conformanceis the result of this directly to very different regulatory environments. conceptualseparation between town and road. The result is a chaotic, but memorable,strip with much Dedhamwas able to claim ownership over their of its historic strip heritagestill intact. strip by tying the imageof that strip to the central identity of the town. Town planners and officials Peabody,like Dedham, sees its strip as a central who were responsiblefor writing and maintaining part of the identity of the City. Unlike Dedham, the code bought into the notion that the image of however,Peabody officials and planningdocuments Route 1 should be reflective of the quality of the indicatethat the usesrather than the appearanceare town. Consequently,they rebuilt their zoning code what need to be improved to bringthe road up to around theenforcement of this vision. The result Peabody'sstandards. Thus, the city has focusedon altering use requirementsrather thandimensional of further research.What is clearfrom this research, requirementsto attain the kind of environmentthat however, is that the implementation strategies city officials feel would be reflective of the image Dedhamdeveloped were appropriate and effective Peabodywants to present. All three casesillustrate meansof bringing the vision behind their zoning a clear connection betweenthe specific nature of code to life on their strip. All of the strips indicate eachtown's relationshipwith Route1 and how strip that byactively working to claim strip development developmentis regulatedin the town. areasas worthy of attention, and by defining them as places that municipalities can control if they Even given the differences between the three choose to, planners could potentially make steps municipalitiesstudied there,the importanceof how towards redefining strips as local, unique, and even towns perceiveand relateto their strips is universal personal places expressive of the identity of the among these cases. While deeply intuitive, the towns where they are located. acknowledgementof the fundamental importance of how strip developmentis perceivedand defined Not only can this research contribute to the locallycould potentially be captured in orderto begin redefinition of the strip, perhaps it can encourage to build new ways of planning for and controlling the expansion of the vocabulary of tools that strip development.Regardless ofwhether a passerby municipalitiesuse to govern their strips. Giventhe of the Dedhamstrip feels that the new landscaping differencesbetween town-road relationshipsshown is better or more attractive than the development here, and the different zoning approachesadopted that came before, the effectivenessof the process by Dedhamand Peabodywith such varying results, that Dedhamunderwent to achievethose changes it is quite possiblethat using zoning to control strip is obvious. Even though Dedham operates with developmentwill not be the most effective option limited planning resources,especially compared to for every municipality. Some towns, like Saugus, a city like Peabody,they havemaximized municipal might ultimately decidethat the recognizabilityand control over developmentby endowingthe elected memorabiltyof their strip is important to them, and planning and design review board to have wide rather than using zoning to create a more uniform discretionarycontrol over developmentdecisions. environment,theycould develop incentive strategies to encouragecreative architecture and signage.Or, Giventhe researchconducted here, it is impossible for towns with strips similar to Saugus',with a wide to saywhetherDedham's success was partially due to variety of architectural styles, and a rich legacy of the fact that the town had reallyreached a consensus highway strip design, perahps updating design about priorities for Route1 beforethe designreview guidelines to embrace that style of development board was established,but this question is worthy rather than supressor gloss over it with arborvitae would be a more appropriate strategy. and faces of their town. Until planners, both on local and national scales,accept this reality of the Ultimately, this question of perceived identity modern strip, it is unlikely that we will come up plays a role not only in how individual localities with better alternatives. write and implement zoning, but in the the way that critics and planners think about and regulate strip development. The assumptionthat strips are singular, uniform environmentsacross the country has hamperedthe ability of plannersto createviable programs for improving existing strips, much the way Saugushas never consideredusing zoning to comprehensivelyregulate the image of its Route 1 strip. The critics that attack strip development, and the planners and designersthat work towards reforming strip developmenthave typically tried to developuniversal solutions, such as new urbanism, or traditional neighborhood development, that could be applied to any placewith the sameresult. But, the reasearch in the thesis illustrates that nuancesof any code and its implementationwill be laden with the values of the community and affect physicalform regardlessof how non-specific the solution seems. There will be no one size fits all zoning solution that will solve the woes of the strip.

A prevailingattitude that strips canjust be planned awayby building new, better developmentwithout them, has left the strip intellectually abandoned and proliferating according to its own logic. If this thesis tells us nothing else, it shows that effective changescan be made in strips once they are identified as what they really are: the gateways Conclusion63 64 Endnotes

Delores Hayden, A Field Guide to Sprawl (New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 2004), 98. 2 Trudy Tynan. "Milestones of history; Forevery marker there's a story as you travel the famed Boston Post Road," The Associated Press,Sept. 22, 2004: as posted on www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5931 638/. 3 Trisch, Electa Kane, Building Dedham: Celebrating 350 Years of History (Dedham, MA: Dedham Historical Society, 1986), Chapter 2. 4 Arthur Noonan, Dedham Town Planner. PersonalInterview, December 3, 2004. 1 Saugus Traffic and Safety Study Committee, Fred Moore, Chairman, "SaugusTraffic and Safety Report," Town of Saugus, March 15, 2004, Introduction. 6 John Burns and Thomas Sheehan, eds, A Gathering of Memories: Saugus 1900-2000 (Saugus, MA: Saugus Millenium Book Committee, 2000), 246. 7 StephenJ. Schier and Kenneth Turino. Peabody(Dover, NH: Arcadia Publishing, 1997), 7. 8 Karen Levine, The Shaping of the Suburban Growth Center: The View from SpeenStreet/Route 9, (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T Thesis, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, 1990) 33. 9 Ibid, 187. 1 Hayden, 2004, 26. " RobertVenturi, Denise Scott Brown,and SteveIzenour. Learning from the Las Vegas; TheForgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1977), 9. " Jackson 1958, 195. 13 Robert M. Leary, "Zoning" in Principals and Practice of Urban Planning, eds. William I. Goodman and Eric C. Freund. (Washington, DC: International City Manages' Association, 1968), 405. Family Tree," 14 Edward J. Kaiser and David R. Godschalk, "Twentieth Century Land Use Planning; A Stalwart Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (Summer 1995): 376. 15 Ibid, 368. 16 Leary 1968, 420. 17 Ibid, 423. Is Ibid, 426. 19 Ibid, 426. eds. Frank S. So and Judith Getzels, 20 Frank S. So, "Zoning" from The Practice of Local Government Planning, (Washington D.C.: International City Management Association in cooperation with the American Planning Association, 1979). 21 Ibid. Towns and Town- 22 Alex Krieger, "Since (and Before) Seaside," in Duany, Andres and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. Making Principals ( New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1991), 9. Shaping of Suburbia," Journal of the 23 Michael, Southworth and Eran Ben-Joseph. "Street Standards and the American Planning Association Winter 1995, (61) 1: 75. 24 Ibid, 65. of 2s RichardW Willson, "Suburban Parking Requirements;A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use and Sprawl," Journal the American Planning Association, Winter 1995 (61) 1: 29. 26 Ibid, 30. 27 Ibid, 29. Endnotes 65 28 Ibid, 39. 29 Kunstler 1998. 110. 30 Ibid, 112. 31 Ibid, 93-94. 32 Ibid, 94. 3 Andr6s Duany and Emily Talen. "Transect Planning,"Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2002 (68) 3: 254-266. 34 Ibid. 3s Anton ClarenceNelessen, Visionsfor a New American Dream, (Chicago, IL.: Planners Press, 1994). 36 Ruth Eckdish Knack, "Tony Nelesson's Do-It-Yourself Neotraditionalism," Planning, December 1991 (18): 337-42. 37 Lynne, C. Manzo, "BeyondHouse and Haven:Toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationshipswith Places," Journal of Environmental Psychology,2003 (23): 47. 38 Misse Webster-Herber, "Underlying Concerns in Land-UseConflicts-the Role of Place-Identity in Risk Perception," Environmental Scienceand Policy, 2004 (7): 109-116. 39 Dolores Hayden, Building Suburbia; Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2003), 5. 40 In other words, the regulations here could produce attached structures with 10' setbacks that might appear on an urban downtown street. 41 Dedham Zoning By-Law, "Character and Purpose of Districts; Highway Business District," Section I-1.b 42 Timing is an additional factor that contributes to the ability of zoning to change landscapes. Zoning, by nature, produces incremental changes - changes won't show up on the ground just because changes were made in the code. For instance, when Dedham passed its comprehensive zoning changes in 1995, there was a string of properties along Route 1 that were ready for redevelopment. Almost immediately after the code was updated, a series of five properties along the road underwent major renovations that required them to come into compliance with the new requirements. Some of these properties were fairly sizable, and within a period of a couple of years, the roadside had changed quite a bit. 43 Saugus Zoning By-Law,"Administration and Enforcement," Article X-1. 44 Mary Carfagna, Saugus Planning Board Chair, personal interview, March 22, 2005. 4s Ibid. 46 PeabodyZoning Code. 47 Noonan, 2004. 48 Dedham Master Plan; 2001 and Beyond....Town of Dedhman, 1996: Chapter IV Land Use, p. 6. 49 Peter Zahka, Property Lawyer,Former Planning Board Member, and former member of the Dedham Board of Selectmen,personal interview, March 2, 2005. 50 Dedham Master Plan, Chapter I, Introduction, 3. 1 Dedham Master Plan, Chapter VII, Environment, 3. 52 Ibid, 5. s3 1995 Dedham Town Report. s4 Shapiro, 2005. ss Dedham Planning Board, Letter to Town Meeting Representatives& Citizens of Dedham, May 25 1993. 56 Shapiro, 2005. s7 Town of Dedham, Zoning By-Lawfor the Town of Dedham, Massachusetts,Chapter VIII-4, Section G. 58 1995 Dedham Town Report, 132 59 Shapiro, 2005. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid.

62 Commonwealth of MassachusettsState EthicsCommission "Disposition Agreement in the Matter of Michael Kelleher," Commission Adjudicatory Docket No. 683, June 25, 2003. 63 Saugus Traffic and Safety StudyCommittee, Fred Moore, Chairman, "Saugus Traffic and Safety Report," Town of Saugus, March 15, 2004, Introduction. 64 Ibid, 3-5. 65 Ibid, 6-7. 66 Janet Leuci, Town-Meeting Member and founding member of NO BLAST,Personal Interview, April 20, 2005. 67 Ellen Burns, Former Saugus Planning Board Chair, and founding member of NO BLAST,Personal Interview, April 20, 2005. 68 Ibid.

69 Carfagna, 2005. 70 Jean Delios, Current Director of Community Development in Peabody; Former Director of Community Development in Saugus,Personal Interview, February 2, 2005. 71 Metropolitan Area Planning Council and Central Planning Transportation Staff for the Saugus Community Development Committee, Saugus Community Development Plan, Saugus, MA: June 2004. 72 Mac Daniel, "Zone Laws Limit Adult Nightclubs; Area Towns, Cities Making AccessTough," The Boston Globe, December 28, 1997: North Weekly, 1. 73 City of Peabodywith the assistance of The Cecil Group, Inc. City of Peabody, Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis, Peabody,Ma: September 2002, 16. 74 Ibid. 75 Joe Viola, PeabodyPlanning Staff Liaison to the Planning Board, Personal Interview, April 20, 2005. 76 Mike Parquette,Assistant Director for Community and Economic Development, City of Peabody. Personal Interview, February 16, 2005. 77 City of Peabody, 1990 Master Plan Update, Peabody,MA: March 1990, 21. 78 Ibid. 79 Parquette, 2005. 80 Ibid. 8I Viola, 2005. 82 Parquette, 2005.

83 Ibid.

Endnotes 67 68 Selected Bibliography Booksand Chaptersin Books

Beaumont, Constance E. Better Modelsfor Superstores. Washington D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1997

Binford, Henry. The First Suburbs: Residential Communities on Boston's Periphery 1815-1860. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

Burns,John and Thomas Sheehan,eds, A Gathering of Memories: Saugus 1900-2000, Saugus, MA: Saugus Millenium Book Committee, 2000.

Duany, Andres and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. Towns and Town-MakingPrincipals. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1991.

Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk,and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Riseof Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press,2000.

Gans, Herbert. The Levittowners: Waysof Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community. New York: Columbia Press,1982. (Reprint)

Garvin, Alexander. The American City: What Works and What Doesn't. New York: McGrawHill, 1996.

Gudis, Catherine. Buyways:Automobility, Billboards, and the American Cultural Landscape. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Gutfreund, Owen. Twentieth Century Sprawl; Highways and the Reshaping of the American Landscape. NewYork: Oxford University Press,2004.

Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia; Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. New York: Pantheon Books, 2003

Hayden, Dolores. A Field Guide to Sprawl. New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 2004.

Jackson,John Brinkerhoff. Landscape in Sight: Looking at America. Edited by Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz. New Haven: Yale University Press:1997.

Jackson,John Brinkerhoff. A Senseof Place,A Senseof Time. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Kunstler, James Howard. The Geography of Nowhere; The Riseand Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993. Bibliography 69 Kunstler, James Howard. Home from Nowhere. New York: Simon andSchuster, 1998.

Leary, Robert M. "Zoning" in Principals and Practice of Urban Planning, eds. William 1.Goodman and Eric C. Freund. (Washington, DC: International City Manages' Association, 1968), 405.

Karen Levine, The Shaping of the Suburban Growth Center: The View from Speen Street/Route 9, M.I.T Thesis: Department of Urban Studies and Planning, 1990.

Nelessen,Anton Clarence. Picture This...TheResults of a Visual Preference Survey. Princeton, NJand Seattle, WA: A NelessonAssociates, Inc., 1993.

Nelessen,Anton Clarence. Visionsfor a New American Dream. Chicago, IL.: Planners Press, 1994.

Popper, Frank J. "Understanding American Land Use Regulation Since 1970; A Revisionist Interpretation." Journal of the American Planning Association54 (Summer 1988): 291-301.

Schier, StephenJ., and Kenneth Turino. Peabody,Dover, NH: Arcadia Publishing,1997.

So, Frank S., and Judith Getzels, eds. The Practice of Local Government Planning. Washington D.C.: International City ManagementAssociation in cooperation with the American Planning Association, 1979.

Szold, Terry. Smart Growth: Form and Consequences.Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Land Institute, 2002.

Trisch, Electa Kane, Building Dedham: Celebrating 350 Yearsof History, Dedham, MA: Dedham Historical Society, 1986.

Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown, and Steve Izenour. Learning from the Las Vegas; The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1977.

Journals

Duany, Andr6s and Emily Talen. "Transect Planning," Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2002 (68) 3.

Duerksen, ChristopherJ. "Form, Character and Context: New Directions in Land Use Regulation," American Planning Association Annual Conference.April, 1996.

Foster, Kelleann. "Zoning on the Line." Planning (Nov 1996): 10-13.

Jacobs, Harvey M. "Fighting Over Land;Americas Legacy...America's Future?"Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (Spring, 1999): 141-149 Kaiser, EdwardJ., and David R. Godschalk. "Twentieth Century Landuse Planning; A Stalwart Family Tree." Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (Summer 1995): 365-385

Knack, Ruth Eckdish. "Return to Euclid." Planning (May 1997): 4-8.

Knack, Ruth Eckdish, "Tony Nelesson's Do-It-Yourself Neotraditionalism," Planning, December 1991 (18): 337-42.

Manzo, Lynne, C. "Beyond House and Haven: Toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationshipswith Places," Journal of Environmental Psychology,2003 (23): 47.

Salvesen,David. "The Making of Place,"Urban Land Vol. 61 no. 7, July 2002.

So, Frank S. "Zoning" The Practice of Local GovernmentPlanning, eds. Frank S. So and Judith Getzels, (Washington D.C.: International City ManagementAssociation in cooperation with the American Planning Association, 1979)

Southworth, Michael, and Eran Ben-Joseph."Street Standards and the Shaping of Suburbia," Journal of the American Planning AssociationWinter 1995, (61) 1.

Webster-Herber,Misse. "Underlying Concerns in Land-UseConflicts-the Role of Place-Identity in Risk Perception," Environmental Scienceand Policy, 2004 (7): 109-116.

Willson, Richard W. "Suburban Parking Requirements; A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use and Sprawl," Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 1995 (61) 1.

Newspapers,Periodicals

Barry, Eileen. "Counting on Mobile Homes Trailer Owners Leeryof New Housing Status," The Boston Globe, July 15, 2001, Al.

Boyle, Doug. "N.E.Shopping Center blast pact reached; NO-BLAST,FAM find common ground," The Saugus Advertiser, October 27, 1987, 1.

Bushnell, David. "Saugus' Image as a Route 1 Community Can Be Deceiving," The Boston Globe, December 31, 1994, Community Profile.

Cobb, Nathan. "The Strip: 7.6 miles that appeals, repels," The Boston Globe,September 7, 1980, Living Arts, 1.

Cramer, Maria. "Rethinking zoning rules to attract business," The Boston Globe,January 8, 2004, Globe South 1. Bibliography 71 Daniel, Mac. "Zone laws limit adult nightclubs; Area towns, cities making accesstough," The Boston Globe, December 28, 1997, North Weekly, 1.

English, Bella. "Northern Overexposure," The Boston Globe,May 20, 1992, Metro/Region, 27.

Forman,Judith. "Retail giants, restaurant, bank in plan for mall area," The Boston Globe,October 24, 2002, Globe South 1.

Griffin, Jim. "Rennaisanceon Route 1?" The Saugus Advertiser, February 15, 1995, 1.

Liu, E. Michael. "Six architects pick the good, the bad, and the ugly," The Boston Globe, October 10, 1999, North Weekly 8.

Lupo, Alan. "Paradiseskewed in suburbia," The BostonGlobe, August 10, 2003, North Weekly 1.

McCabe,Kathy. "North Weekly BusinessNotebook," The Boston Globe,January 3, 1999, North Weekly 9.

McCabe,Kathy. "Hooters faces a fight to establish franchise on Route 1 in Peabody,"The Boston Globe, January 31, 1999, North Weekly 9.

McCabe,Kathy. "Peabodysays no to Hooters franchise," The BostonGlobe, February 21, 1999, North Weekly 7.

McDonald, Matt. "Route 1 area may get a break," The Boston Globe, November 8, 2001, Globe South 1.

Preer, Robert. "Beautification in the fast lane; Landscaping improves Route 1," The Boston Globe, September 6, 2001, Globe South 1.

Preer, Robert. "Supermarket has plans for Levitz site," The Boston Globe,April 29, 2004, Globe South 1.

Sessler,Amy. "Saugus looks beyond the boom; Fast pace of development of Route 1 brings questions about the quality of life," The Boston Globe,Article found in Route 1 press clippings file at the Saugus Public Library, date unknown.

Tynan, Trudy. "Milestones of history; For every marker there's a story as you travel the famed Boston Post Road," The Associated Press,September 22, 2004 (as posted on www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5931638).

Volger, Mark. "Earth Day Heroes," North Shore Sunday, April 22, 1990, 7. Municipal Documents

Dedham Planning Board, Letter to Town Meeting Representatives& Citizens of Dedham, May 25 1993.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council and Central Planning Transportation Staff for the Saugus Community Development Committee, Saugus Community Development Plan, Saugus, MA: June 2004.

Town of Dedhman, Dedham Master Plan; 2001 and Beyond..., Dedham, MA: 1996.

Town of Dedham, Dedham Town Report, Dedham, MA: 1995.

Town of Dedham, Zoning By-Law.

City of Peabody,Zoning By-Law

City of Peabodywith the assistanceof The Cecil Group, Inc. City of Peabody,Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis, Peabody,Ma: September 2002.

Saugus Traffic and Safety Study Committee, "Saugus Traffic and Safety Report," Town of Saugus: March 15, 2004

Saugus Zoning By-Law

Interviews

Berroni, Fred: SaugusZoning Enforcement Officer. Feb 9 2005

Burns, Ellen: Former Saugus Planning Board Chair, and founding member of NO BLAST.April 20, 2005.

Carfagna, Mary: Saugus Planning Board Chair. March 22, 2005.

Jean Delios: Current Director of Community Development in Peabody;Former Director of Community Development in Saugus. February2, 2005

Galinas, Katy: Chair of the Saugus Zoning Board of Appeals. April 15, 2005.

Leuci, Janet: Saugus Town-Meeting Member and founding member of NO BLAST.April 20, 2005.

Noonan, Arthur: Dedham Town Planner. December 3, 2004.

Parquette, Mike: Assistant Director for Community and Economic Development, City of Peabody. February 16, 2005. Bibliography 73 Shapiro, Dan: Former Dedham Planning Board Member, Zoning, Planning, and Construction Committee Member, Ad-Hoc Zoning CommitteeMember, and Special Town Council. April 4, 2005.

Joe Viola: PeabodyPlanning Staff Liaison to the Planning Board. April 20, 2005

Zahka, Peter: Property Lawyer, Former Planning Board Member, and former member of the Dedham Board of Selectmen.March 2, 2005. Appendix A: Comparative Demographics

23,782 47,039 25,549 N/A 23,464 48,129 26,078 5,819,100 0 -1 q*/ ? 41 9 i /

22% 22% 21% 24% 20% 19% 19% 24% 42% 42% 43% 39% 17% 17% 18% 13%

61,699 54,829 55,301 52,792

33% 23% 19% 34% 9.4% 11.2% 5.1% 12.4% 2,199 5,411 1,320 721.060

Appendix A 75 Appendix B: Research Summaries

DEDHAM: InterviewSummary Matrix

Noonan Planner 2/23/05 the roadwas not effective at creatinglarge directly stemmedfrom a reflectiveof overall lots. movementto beautifythe characterof town. road. Becausezoning was Updatedcode has seenas the causeof the incrementallyimproved form of the build out, it the roadside. was seenas the right tool in%imrnv thek biiA nt Dan Planning 4/4/05 Improving The face of the townto 1990 zoning changes DesignReview Board Becausevisual Shapiro Board "visual commutersalong the havebeen extremely has playeda key role environmentwas the Member environ- road. effectiveat improvingthe in taking control of the primaryproblem, zoning ment" visual environmentalong visual environment,and wasthe mostappropriate Route1. improvingthe overall tool for changing Peter Former 2/25/05 Aesthetic Manypeople's only Zoning changeslent Flx biity/scrtotn deelpmnt Zahka Planning 3/2/05 quality of viewof Dedham;before weightto the vision nature of the site Board roadside changesit wasnot expressedin the 1995 plan reviewprocess member; develop- reflectiveof the quality of master plan. has allowedthe town Former ment the town. to negotiatewith Selectman Zoning changes developersto achieve Founderof embracedby business the most aesthetically Dedham ownerswho saw pleasingoutcomes. Civic Pride improvementsas a way Committee in increaseproperty values. Planning Document Summary Press Coverage Summary

aIVIInIu.alm - M V13Iuu luI Lim VacycacUiy I IULCU LIa L &unniVI i i an ca p1lupu.'Icu Master Plan Route 1 corridor is outlined Route 1 corridor projects as a means of upgrading the in the introduction. Every negative image of Dedham to image of the Route 1 corridor subsequent section contains commuters on the road. to match the aesthetic quality a subsection about Route 1 of the rest of the town. i enrripm t Dedham 1995 Devotes section to describing Minimal discussion of Report highlights Town Report Route 1 zoning changes. existing conditions. discretionary nature of new 7onina annrovals nrocess.

arnple t 1 M1l 01 Ilf u unIId I I articles from September 6, 2001 property redevelopments interviewed are quoted in interviewed reinforce the idea regional papers October 24, 2002 along Route, all after the the sample of articles that I that changes in the Route 1 April 20, 2003 1995 zoning changes. looked at. Quotes featured landscape due to the 1995 January 8, 2004 in the article reinforce the zoning changes have helped April 29, 2004 attitudes I gathered from my to upgrade the image of interviews. Dedham Route 1 to be more congruous with the quality of the rest of the town.

In addition, four of the articles explicitly lauded the 1995 zoning changes, and the new site review processes as contributing to the revitalization, and new competitiveness of the Dedham strip compared to neiahhorina towns

Appendix B 77 SAUGUS: Interview SummaryMatrix

_/ 'I Berroni Enforce- compliancealong the ment road. OIffirar Ellen Town 4/15/05 Convenientsupplement The town hasn't tried The town has not tried Burns Meeting 4/20/05 to the towntax base,but to use zoning to shape to use zoning to shape Member; not reallya part of the development;changes developmenton Route1 Former town. in existing and proposed becausethey don't see Planning developmentshave been the road as part of the Board the result of piecemeal town. Chair; efforts Founding Member NO BLAST Mary Current 3/22/05 New Tax generator,but Becauseit is already Only verycursory site The planning board hasso Carfagna Planning landuses, otherwiseit's a strip built out, zoningdoes plan reviewso the little control over zoning Board grocery like any other. Most not play that big a role planningboard, and and site plan approval, Chair store, traffic residentsavoid it, if they in shapingdevelopment other town agencies, that zoning does not improve- havea choice. - developmentis already havelittle discretionary register as an option for ment there. control over creatingchange. Jean Former 2/2/05 RouteI not an essential Variancesfrequently development Zoning is a better tool for Delios part of town, or a priority doled out bythe Board developmentin the town, for residents of Selectmen,so zoning not on Route1. ultimately is not that - ImrovngWat' thre i thre. bindiri op Rputp1 Katy Zoning 4/15/05 Improving What's there is there. Board ypicay doesn't Most requeststhe ZBA Galinas Boardof signage allow variancesfor seeshave to do with Appeals new construction, signage. Thereis not Chair but becauseRoute I consensuson the board is already built out, about upgradingsignage Boarddoesn't get many on the road, therefore, requestsfor that part of not muchhas changed. the road Janet Town 4/20/05 Residentsneighboring Variancesgiven for just Zoning by-lawnever Leuci Meeting the Roadfeel vulnerable aboutanything - shape really changedon Route Member; to the lack of control of developmenton Route 1 - becausepeople are Founding over developmentthere, 1 more attributable to focused on other areasof Memberof but otherwiseit is not individual piecemeal town, interfacingdirectly NO BLAST seenas a centralarea of fights of residents. with developersseemed town. like more effective route to seeingimmediate changein specific developments SaugusPlanning DocumentsSummary

Minimal - severalreferences Kecognizea as an inaccurate No aiscussionor existing or Community to Route1 throughout representationof the town proposedzoning on Route1 Development document, butno overall of Saugus,but consistently corridor. Plan focus. referredto in the context of regionalissues such as Aside from suggestinga Communityparticipation traffic. regionaltransportation sectionsshow minimal study,the document makes communityinterest in no explicit suggestionsfor addressingRoute 1. changingRoute I through 7nninn or nthpr mant

Appendix B 79 SaugusPress Coverage Summary

1PesDtNaueoarilsRlvneu teIo fat icet 0M -r oVte41 Sampleof December28, 1997 Newsarticles predominantly Quotestrom EllenBurns, as Quotesfrom otticials regionalpress December28, 1997 about proposeddevelop- well as quotesfrom Michael consistentlyframe Route1 as articles May 17, 1998 mentsand development Kelleher, TownManager a placethat requiresregional August22, 2004 trends on Route1. RichardCardillo expand and attention;the servesa reinforceattitudes noted convenienttax generator for during interviewsfor this town; andthat is a chaotic thesis. back yard,not coincident with the characterof the rest Eventhese newsarticles use of the town. a consistentvocabulary for describingand discussing The text of the articles Route1. reinforcesthis image by frequently referring to the difficult traffic, chaotic oadsiremix of husin sses April 1980 Opinionsand Editorialsabout The descriptionswithin The articles consistently May20, 1992 Route1 through Saugus thesearticles provide describeRoute 1 Saugus October 12, 1999 a counterpointto the as chaotic,disorganized, August 10, 2003 perceptionsexpressed by jumbled, in both design Saugustown officials. and mix of uses. Only one of four the articles I found in this categorymentions any part of Saugusother than Route1. Whilethe descriptionsof Route1 areovertly negative,the presenceof four separate editorialswithin the sample of articles I found points to the road'sability to capture ______theiOm aipatonn pf pasers b Sampleof local October,22 1987 Newsarticles, mainlyabo-ut Articles chroniclethe efforts None of-thiearticles I found in papers April 22, 1990 the piecemealefforts of local of NO-BLASTand other local this categorydiscuss zoning February15, 1996 residentsand officials to alter non-profit,activist groups explicitly - at least in these the courseof single projects. that act as the informal samplesof presscoverage, regulatorsof Route1 zoning is not promotedas an development. option for altering the course of developmenton Route1.

Bycovering whatthey do, the articles set up an oppositional relationship betweenthe road andthe town, echoing theattitudes of Burnsand Leuci. The road is not portrayedas a part of town, but as a disrupter of town. PEABODY: InterviewSummary Matrix

Delios Commun- information about Route ity and in Peabody- she referred Economic me to Mike Parquetteon Develop- all questions. ment Mike Assistant | 2/16/05 | | Getting Peoplesee Route1 as a Originalcode set Lackof site plan review ' City is considering Parquette Director better receptaclefor usesthey to mimic industry outsideof DDD limits developingsite plan for control over don't want elsewhere. standardsfor the kind the ability of the city to reviewfor all zoning Commun- the uses of developmentthe city regulatethe form and districts in order to ity and locating wantedto attract - large layout of developments. get better control over Economic along the scaleretail, highway the appearanceof new Develop- road. oriented businesses,etc. Most changesin developmentsalong Route ment proposeddevelopments 1. But some uses,like the currently happenthrough mobile home parks were informal negotiationwith DDDwas a direct result already thereby the time developer,not through of interest in upgrading the first code waswritten zoning approvalprocess. the usesalong Route1 to in 1958, and now can't match the image that the be zoned out. City feelsthe road should have. Impactof zoning on the overall shapeof Route1

JoeViola City 4/20/05 Better Currentlymuddled Poblems on Route I are Lackof site plan review The sensethat useson Planner, employment anddisorganized, not more about usesthan outside of the DDD Route1 were really not Staff center realizingthe city's vision physicalappearance; the hampersthe ability what the Citywanted led Liaison DDDhas started to have of the city to control directly to the DDD,since to the a real impacton Route developmentdirectly. zoningis the bestway to Planning 1 in the new business control land uses. Board oriented hotelsthat are Boardof Selectmengrant locatingthere. varianceswith adviceof Idirecythe planning staffD

Appendix B 81 PeabodyPlanning Documents Summary

utJLyuI reauuuy IVuIIna:ICL - LcccuVau rFUULe I %uIIsIZLIILIy Existing 2002 Route1 appearbriefly in describedas chaotic, RouteI as an areathat the Conditionsand LandUse and Management, unplanned,and containing City should focuson for Trend Analysis EconomicDevelopment, marginal uses. redevelopment;perhaps Report andTransportation and considerfurther rezoningto CirculaionI L.11U3W Q3.5ections . I .232 City of Peabody September, Minimal - scattered The documentdoes not Severalsuggestions about MasterPlan 2002 referencesand brief containsignificant description updating Route1 zoning suggestionsfor Route or analysis. appear. All suggestions 1 appearin LandUse focus on upgrading uses and Management, in newdevelopments to EconomicDevelopment, promotePeabody as a andTransportation and "business friendly" city. Circulationsections_ City of Peabody March, 1991 I only hadaccess to the Route1 describedas a classic Zoning changesdesigned MasterPlan sectionof the Master Plan car-orientedstrip, to attracthigher quality Update devotedto the creationof developmentsthrough higher the DDD;this entiresection Route1 currently and better uses. addressedissues of both underutilized- could support the DDDand Route1 in higher and better usesthat general. could benefitfrom locationon highway PeabodyPress Coverage Summary

:>ampieor january :j, 199v Newsarticies Tocuson .. - -.,,.... -- ,, ,.., Y , , - .. , ,., .. ,.. , ., regionalpress January31, 1999 1999 fight over a proposed discussthe role of zoning in I wasnot able to interview articles February21, 1999 Hooterson Route1. shaping developmentalong consistentlyreinforce the July 15, 2001 Route1 and the degreeof priority of locating higher One articlediscusses status control the City hasover the quality usesalong RouteI in of Peabodymobile home usesthat locatethere. Peabody. parksunder Mass. Gen.Law Chapter40B. Articles also contain quotes from severalcity officials I wasnot ableto interview muclf

Appendix B 83