Joan Entwistle
Draft section 4.5 - Pedestrians and Bicycles: this paragraph seems more concerned with existing constraints rather than plans and visions. It's disconcerting to read "the future level of use of new sidewalks and bike paths is uncertain". Certainly not every new subdivision needs sidewalks, especially if they are required to build connections to existing trails and bike paths. This should be a top consideration of every development plan, commercial or residential. Past experience with trails and bike paths shows that if you build it they will come. Areas of town that are densely developed but have few sidewalks - such as between rt 2 and W. Concord, need more sidewalks, and a separate bike lane or path on rt 62, which needs to be part of the planned bridge replacement. Sudbury has done an excellent job of providing aesthetically pleasing sidewalks on narrow, busy country roads, creating safer, healthier neighborhoods.

Brad Hubbard-Nelson
I agree with the statement that older homes are not necessarily 'fuel suckers', since in most cases one can improve home efficiency greatly (taking advantage of rebates from either MassSave or the Town of Concord to help pay for it). These smaller homes serve a wider, more diverse market which is not well served by the $1M+ new homes. I see nothing wrong with a home buyer deciding to add to or replace a home to suit their needs, but the trend of buying and demolishing small homes to build spec houses - essentially deciding what the market should be - does not serve this town well. Those spec houses, generally built to code-minimum standards, are not necessarily more energy efficient than a smaller home that has been upgraded.

India Hoeschen-Stein
Jessica - I don't agree that these 60 year old ranch houses are fuel suckers. I worked as an engineer in the energy industry for many years and most (if now all these houses) were insulated and retrofitted during the 90's under the demand-side management era. The gas utilities were offering huge subsidies for energy improvements for many years.
I definitely agree that for folks selling their house they will take the best offer. Unfortunately, small, affordable energy efficient houses are not being built in their place. Across the street from me a 960 sqft (3 bedrm, 1 bath) selling for $580,000 was replaced by a 4,600 sqft home with 4 bedrms and one bath costing $1.6 million. At the rate that this is happening across Town I can guarantee that Concord will see it's energy use (and cost) rise and age and income diversity will also disappear.

Wade Rubinstein
Concord needs a public restroom in West Concord with easy access to the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. This would be much appreciated by visitors and businesses. A public restroom could also act as a kiosk to promote local businesses.

Andy Smith
Build an open park with brick/stone pavers and lots of bench seating and plantings in front of the Visitor Center. Concord Center desperately needs outdoor seating and gathering spaces for eating lunch or accommodating larger groups of tourists without clogging the sidewalks. This would make the Visitor Center more visible from Main Street and provide a more welcoming presence for visitors.

Matthew Johnson
The "Existing Conditions" presentation that Civic Moxie made at the workshop claimed that Concord's population had grown by 13.4% since 2000. That didn't sound right to me, so I got the town census data from the Town Clerk. It shows Concord's population of 15,537 in 2000 growing to 15,987 in 2016. That's 450 people, or 2.9%, over 16 years. I think it's very important to correct this error, which could mislead readers into thinking that Concord's a fast-growing town, when its population has actually been very stable for the past few decades. (In 1990, the population was 15,424.) I'm not certain, but my guess is that the error came from using US Census data, which counts the MCI Concord prison population. That may have increased substantially as a result of the prison changing from an intake facility to a residential site.