Alderman Amy Sangiolo summed up the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting in a recent email to constituents…
The Real Property Reuse Committee will meet on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 7:45 p.m. in Room 211 at Newton City Hall. They will be discussing the Joint Advisory Planning Group and Planning Department recommendations for both the 70 Crescent Street and 1294 Centre Street (also here and here) proposals. In addition, the Committee will hear and discuss a proposal to reverse it’s decision to surplus the property at 70 Crescent Street and establish a memorial park at that location. The proposal, developed by the Crescent Street has been spearheaded by Alderman Jim Cote from Ward 3 and joined by Alds. Harney, Brousal-Glaser, Norton, and Sangiolo. More complete documentation is available online for 70 Crescent Street and 1294 Centre Street.
I really haven’t been paying attention of this project. At first I thought it was an odd choice for a memorial park but now realize that it’s to memorialize those who lost their homes due to the building of the Pike. That’s a thing? Or is it a cause designed to help fortify an opposition to housing? (Because, after all wouldn’t building housing be a good way to honor those who lost homes?)
I’m not being flip here, it’s just that in all my years here I’ve never heard a call to memorialize this issue.
Greg, I agree totally. I believe that this is just another way of opposing development.
Or maybe it’s an opportunity to create/preserve a small amount of open space in a neighborhood that is undergoing rapid development?
@Tricia: If that’s the case, then that should be the argument, yes?
Greg et al,
This neighborhood has been subjected to a level of housing development close to strangulation. They need a break from even more and a pocket park is but small recompense.
@Blueprint: Both you and Trish haven’t answered my question, except by virtue of ignoring it.
I’m pretty sure that is the argument, Greg. Did you look at the PPT?
Yes. That’s where I learned that this was to memorize the tear down of homes. (See “Proposed Memorial Park)
The document lists 4 reasons to reconsider the decision to surplus/develop the parcel. The “memorial” aspect was 4th.
Here’s the part of a letter I wrote to the Board of Aldermen last week that deals with Crescent St:
70 Crescent Street is near me, and I am personally involved in the effort to create Robinhood Park, to include a memorial walk recognizing the residents who lost their homes and businesses to enable the construction of the Mass Turnpike. This is in a neighborhood of increasing density, likely to be a target of increasing development, both by right and special permit, and bounded by busy streets including Washington Street, Auburn Street, Comm Ave, and the Mass Pike itself, so that walk-to open space is especially needed.
Some have suggested this property will be expensive to clean up, after years of use by a construction company, state police, and Parks & Rec vehicles, and that a portion of this land should be sold to help pay for that cost. I believe that is short-sighted and a disservice to the residents of the neighborhood, who are not responsible for how the land has been used. The combined parcels, 70 Crescent Street and the existing Reverend Ford Playground, currently accessible only by the Myrtle Baptist Church driveway, amount to only 2.25 acres, not enough to start lopping off pieces without losing the feeling of openness, a welcoming green space on the Crescent Street side, and the ability to create an interesting and decent length walking path around the perimeter. If you’re not familiar with the property, watch my 1-minute video here: https://vimeo.com/121634026 Then imagine what it can be with trees and paths and benches — a green oasis.
I doubt anyone, but possibly builders and real estate agents, is sorry that the creators of Farlow Park (5.0 acres not counting adjacent Chaffin Park at .75) or Newton Centre Playground (17.9 acres) made them the size they did instead of leaving more house lots. It would be unthinkable to sell of pieces of existing parks like Weeks Playground (11.1 acres) or Richardson or Lincoln Playgrounds (5.4 acres each) to finance other open space acquisition, because all our existing parks are so valued. Expecting the residents of the Crescent/Curve Street neighborhood to sacrifice some of this 2.25 acres of open space in order to clean up the rest — which they did not pollute — seems the very opposite of environmental justice.
Fifty years from now when most of us are gone, the people of Newton will be grateful that both these future parks, Waban Hill Reservoir, and Robinhood Park, were preserved for public use, and won’t know what they would do without them, just as we are thankful today for the parks we have now due to the foresight of past generations of Newton residents.
@Julia: Thanks for sharing that letter and especially the video, which is worthy of embedding, rather than just linking.
Former Parks & Rec property at 70 Crescent St from Robinhood Park on Vimeo.
Meanwhile, it appears that the answer to my question (How much of “a thing” is the desire to create a memorial?) is not much.
You make a strong case Julia. I hope Village 14 readers and the Board of Aldermen will support the creation of this new park, green space, and room for kids to play and adults to exercise. That it could be used to memorialize families and homes displaced long ago by the Turnpike, is all the more reason to support it. Let’s keep Newton “The Garden City,” and reclaim green space where appropriate! Creating this park seems like an excellent choice.
Peter Bruce
I am 100% for some more green space and parks. Newton isn’t as pretty as it used to be with all of the monstrous apartment complexes and duplexes/town houses that aren’t as lovely and pleasing to the eye. Also, it takes so much longer to get from one side of Newton to the other, so much more traffic.
Oooh, cool, Greg. Didn’t know we could embed videos in comments! And you won’t get that view over the back fence again until we have another mega-snow accumulation. 🙂
Wouldn’t you be able to replicate that veiw, if you stood ontop of the “memorial statue”? 🙂 🙂
Greg: I don’t know whether a memorial to a split City rises to War Memorial grief, but as a very long-time resident of Newton, I can tell you that people whose homes and neighborhoods were rent asunder by the Pike have spoken out with much more than a little nostalgia from their long-time wounds. Kind of like the tear that opened in Newton Highlands with the closing of Hyde and the still weeping voices in Upper Falls crying for a new Emerson of some sort. These wounds never heal completely and a memorial may offer some solice.
@Sallee: Thanks very much for your comment. I did not mean to belittle the impact that this had on our city or the people who lived there. I’ve always been fascinated by the stories about the town of Quabbin and Boston’s West End (after I graduated college I lived in one of the last remaining brownstones in what used to be the West End, just prior to the construction of the O’Neil building.)
What I didn’t know is if there’s a group or organization or even Facebook page commemorating this. (There is this on Patch)
I don’t oppose the idea of a memorial but a commemorative website might be an even more effective way to preserve this part of history.
Thanks for the video. I think it would make a great little park in the middle of all the development. Sort of a big back yard to replace all the backyards lost in the process. I think right beside the highway that caused the loss and the church that helped keep the community together afterward is right where a memorial should go. I also think if there hasn’t been a lot of desire for a memorial seen, it may be because no one knew it might be possible
Another vote for green space. Maybe a decently-sized dog-friendly park?
Reuse met last eve and not to be swayed by resident concerns, voted 7-0-1 to sell the surplussed property to a developer. This flew in the face of up to date density numbers, and clear excerpts out of the Comprehensive Plan as to how this was a perfect fit for the North side of Newton.
The feeling of the committee is that they cannot afford to keep city owned land for open space? Much better to buy land for new parks and open space!
Now its on to the full board where we have an educational job to make this happen.
Do you know that in the 1965 Parks Commission minutes there is a discussion on potentially acquiring land at Cold Springs Park to expand the park, or allowing a local, well connected, realtor to develop low income housing. The Aldermen of that day did the right thing and purchased the property. Does anyone regret that purchase today?
Jim ,
We Heard last night that the city desperately needs more housing!
Cold Springs Park is ripe for development. Just think how many more units we could pack in there and still have some green space left over ! And there will be a brand new walkable school nearby on Beethoven St for the kids.
Great Idea!
I am mystified that after approving $980K in taxpayer funds to acquire Waban Hill Reservoir for a park in Chestnut Hill, which is experiencing no increase in density, that we would balk at approving land for a park in Auburndale, which is densifying rapidly (and has seen increases in affordable housing units) and which has NO cost to acquire the land, because the City already owns it.
Does not compute.
What Emily said.
With Emily and Marti on this.
Who is the we that approved the $1 mill for Waban Hill Res? Was the money from the general fund or CPA? If it was from the general fund, why was this determined to be the best use of tax money – as opposed to paying down deferred maintenance? What is the plan for the property (which has been surrounded by a corroding metal fence for as long as I’ve been in Newton)?
Between my wife’s. Karen Evans Haywood, and my family we lost nine homes to the Mass Turnpike Extension. We strongly believe that the recommendation from the JAPG and concurred with by the Planning Dept. of the construction of 8 units of housing. expansion of the existing playground with access from Crescent St. is a perfect memorial to the families who lost their homes. The site including the existing park is 98,000sf the tecommendation from the Planning Department limits the housing footprint to 12,000sf leaving a significant area for the playground and open space. The proponents of a park only option do not have a solid plan for funding of a park and since the site is likely contaminated the cost for any reuse of the site will be high.
The proponents also recommended that the park be named Robinhood Park even though no resident of Robinhood Street has signed on as a proponent of the park only option. The name was created without the input of people who lost their homes, in particular one family that lives on Robinhood Street. This is a perfect opportunity for a small housing development project that will maintain open space and create access to a currently under utilized playground.
Thank you Jim, Emily. Marti &Carry.
Lucia, Waban Hill Reservoir was CPA money, although of course that is taxpayer money as well (partially matched by state fee money). Maintenance will have to be from the general fund.
More when I’m not typing on phone.
Howard,
OK , no approval from a key resident on Robinhood St. ? Just change the name then.
This is not the perfect place for a small housing project ! You must be dreaming. This neighborhood as you well know has been the place of multiple demolitions and poor quality high density development, all that seriously impacts the quality of life there. 8 units backed up to the turnpike is not by any stretch perfect. As was mentioned last night the view from the second floor ( not to mention the noise ) from any of the proposed units backed up to the turnpike acoustic wall should not be wished on anyone looking for new housing in Newton. Perfect opportunity for a small housing development??? For whom???
@Blueprintbill – The location is too noisy for a house because of the pike next door but it’s a perfect place for a park? – Hmmm
Jerry, in the park you’re at ground level, and the sound barriers are quite high. I don’t know how effective they are on second and third floors. I don’t remember noticing the noise when I’ve been over there.
Regarding the name, I can give you at least several reasons for Robinhood Park:
1) It seems in the spirit of making the land available for public use, after having it taken away by the state.
2) It’s easy to remember and pronounce. (My example of what not to do was “Lowell National Historical Park.”)
3) It sounds like a place that kids will want to go. We started out with names like Turnpike Memorial Park, but they felt a little too somber for something meant to be recreational space, not a cemetery.
4) I wanted a good Twitter handle. (We’re @RobinhoodPrk because @RobinhoodPark was already taken – but by a long established caravan park in England, so I didn’t feel too bad), and
5) I think former alderperson George Mansfield’s observations about “way-finding” — having a name that helps people know where to find it — makes sense and carried a lot of weight:
Jerry,
I didn’t say it was a perfect place for a park ! Where did you read that ?
But it would be much better place to play than to live next to !
Great views to the north , what ever the relative height of the wall though !
But nothing like a little ivy to solve that problem ! Like Frank Lloyd Wright once said ” Physicians can bury their mistakes, Architects can only plant Ivy “
@Blueprintbill -yes it’s true you did not say ‘perfect place for a park’ . The question on the table is park, housing, or both? It seems to me that your objections to housing apply equally to a park. For either housing or park, ideally you wouldn’t have a highway next door, but for either housing or park, it’s better than nothing.
I think Rev Howard’s plan – a bit of both, makes sense to me. Regardless of whether you lean towards park housing (or both), I think those who are lobbying against housing on the site should drop the memorial to those who lost their houses to the pike. At best it’s very incongruous, at worse it seems like a cynical ploy.
It simply amazes me that people who never lost a home to the MassPike extension somehow think they know what would be the most suitable monument to such a sacrifice better than someone whose extended family actually lost nine homes in Myrtle Village in the 1960s.
Emily, in the final analysis, while I appreciate the hard work that went into this proposal, the broad support for this idea that was promised by supporters never materialized. The Mayor, the Planning Department and the Parks & Recreation Commissioner all reaffirmed their support for the JAPG recommendation that at least a portion of the site be used to create housing including a minimum of 25% affordable units, as well as improvements to an expanded park and playground area and access from the Crescent Street side of the existing Rev. Louis Ford Playground. Representations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Newton Conservators and the Myrtle Baptist Church did not endorse the proposal for “Robinhood Park,” and indicated they were open to housing if it would preserve and expand the existing open space.
As I said at the Real Property Reuse committee meeting on Tuesday night, there is a precedent for the city, the Board of Aldermen, and community organizations like the Newton Conservators, Green Decade, the Newton Housing Authority, the Conservation Commission and others to work together to address the critical need for housing and preservation of open space, right here in my ward at the Forte Estate. As I also promised, I will reach out to these and other organizations and city departments to collaborate on an effort that will balance the needs for housing and accessible open space to the maximum extent feasible. We have done it before, and we can and will do it again.
@ Jerry Reilly – there is little cynicism here at all. It’s an environmental design issue plain and simple. This is a neighborhood that has been subjected to multiple teardowns and oversized, character changing, replacement housing . At the core of the neighborhood is an abondoned piece of city property, which if allowed to be opened up into green space would provide some amenity that the inhabitants otherwise might not enjoy. There has been, with the ( cynical ? ) exploitation of the real estate fabric of the area, a profound loss of green space and landscape, a major increase in density, an increased automobile accomodation / traffic etc. Why should the original residents / taxpayers / home owners of this neighborhood be denied just a little relief in the form of a new pocket park ? If townhouse living is what people want, let them enjoy it in the south end, and don’t try and recreate it here. If escape from an urban situation, ( which is why most of us came here in the first place ) is desired, let them find it, in what is left of our village fabric.
@Blueprintbill – advocate for a park rather than housing if you really think that’s best, but please drop the memorial to those who lost their houses to the pike, from what you’re proposing.
@ Ted Hess-Mahon. This is not ‘Monument Building’, ( as you seem intent on fostering all over the city ), it’s about the creation of a green pocket park. No more monuments in the form of additional housing are needed or asked for by the affected citizenry. Tip O’Niel was to have said ‘all politics are local ‘. In this case the ‘ locality ‘ is this particular, stressed neighborhood. If ‘broad support’ for housing in this neighborhood is exemplified by the agencies you mention, heaven help the physical fabric and character of our city !
Your promise to balance the needs for housing and accessible open space, if applied to this neighborhood, is a broken one, if not simply hollow, ( cynical ? ), retoric !
@Ted – when you “did it before”, it was a little different, wasn’t it, since it was a CPA and Habitat for Humanity project? There was no private developer in the mix with the Forte estate, and only 2 new units were added (for a total of 3 units, all affordable.) The City had a lot more control over the process and outcome. The JAPG report calls for 8 units with 2 of those being affordable. What happens when a private developer says that those numbers don’t work – do we get 10 or 12 with 3?
@ Jerry Reilly. It’s not my proposal to drop anything from. I’m just an ardent supporter for an environmental improvement ! And additional housing doesn’t qualify !
According to this excellent paper about the impact on Newton of the construction of the Turnpike Extension:
“32 houses in the Hicks St. area in West Newton were to be moved to
a new location by the Turnpike Authority at a price of $7,000 per
house, $224,000 total.” (p. 185 [p. 19 of PDF])
…
“Although the Turnpike Authority was supposed to aid the
families of the Hicks Street neighborhood by moving their houses
(as part of Chairman Callahan’s agreement with Mayor Gibbs),
the Authority never followed through on its promise. The dis-
placed families of the Hicks Street neighborhood were left to find
new housing on their own.” (pp. 193-194 [p 27-28 of PDF])
http://www.tcr.org/tcr/essays/EPrize_Turnpike.pdf
Both the establishment of the park for its own sake, and as a memorial to those families who lost their homes (approximately 350) to the Turnpike Extension, are worthy considerations.
This is my first posting to Village 14. I feel compelled to provide facts to this discussion. Ted, the Ford playground area was never surplussed, so you cannot argue that housing on the surplussed land will help allow us to keep the existing playground space. Adding to Julia and Jim, half of Cold Spring Park was built on a dump, so environmental concerns existed with that park proposal as well. As to the balance of open space and housing: the Comprehensive Plan includes a map of maximum housing build-out for the city (including special permits). This map shows maximum build-out of the area within 1/2 mile radius of this property as 110 units. As of today, the number of built and proposed units is 173, including 7 affordable units at Myrtle Village, just steps away. This is 63 units beyond the maximum build out by the city’s own calculations. The balance is for the proposed park to balance the overbuilding around it. It defeats the purpose to have to balance within the lot itself. To Rev. Haywood, members of Myrtle Baptist Church attended the charette held (at the Myrtle Baptist Church) in Jan 2014. Of all the drawings presented by the attendees, not one of them included housing. When we discussed the names for the park, an official representative of the Church was present (and is on the committee email list) and no opposition was given to the name Robinhood Park. A resident of Robinhood Road was on the JAPG, did not agree to the housing recommendation, and signed a petition requesting all open space. The 12,500 was the sq. footage of the proposed buildings. No footprint maximum has been set. And finally, when discussing the memorial aspect, the group felt that 75% market rate units would in no way be respectful to those families who lost their homes.
And one more thing, the Newton Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to support 100% open space and to sponsor the CPA application.
Tony Matt, with all due respect, you have someone who has lived in Newton his whole life and actually lost his family home saying that housing would be a more suitable “memorial.” While I would not go so far as to call this proposal cynical, I would also say that the wishes of those who were actually dispossessed by the MassPike extension ought to carry significant weight in our considerations.
Tricia, the city and the BOA will still have total control over the redevelopment of this parcel, through a carefully draft request for proposal (RFP). The RFP will include a ceiling on the number of units, the requirement that the existing open space be expanded and access provided from Crescent Street, and for smaller houses on a small footprint, all in the cause of creating and preserving as much open space as possible. Let’s see what the response to the RFP is before we go speculating. But to the extent that more affordable units could be created through the use of CDBG and CPA funds, I am willing to work with and advocate strongly for that, and gain the support of the Conservators, the Newton Housing Authority, and whoever else I need to solicit in order to make it happen.
Regardless of the merits of the Robinhood Park proposal, the likelihood that funding can be found to make it happen is questionable at best. What none of the supporters want to face is that this is probably a contaminated site that will require a cleanup regardless of its future disposition and use. The transfer of the property to a developer offers the best prospect for actually getting that done. Moreover, there are over $34 million worth of Parks & Recreation projects already in the queue, including replacing tennis courts at NSHS and Warren, replacing the Newton Highlands and Upper Falls/Braceland parks and playgrounds, purchasing the Waban Hill Reservoir, replacing the Crystal Lake Bathhouse, construction of a new community center and olympic sized pool at Gath, renovating the Burr Park Pellegrini Park and Auburndale Cove field houses, upgrading the Emerson Community Center, restoring the Parks & Recreation headquarters in Newton Center, and more, all or most of which will require heavy reliance on CPA funds. Many of these projects were planned years and years ago. So, which of these would you like to eliminate to make room for Robinhood Park? Finally, Gov. Baker is trying to close a $1.8 billion deficit by cutting the budget, not raising new revenue, and Rep. Khan has said that it will be tough to find state money for a pocket park in West Newton when there are so many other projects around the state in l,ess affluent communities that have been in the works for many years.
Did the families that were displaced receive Money for their homes or not? And if so how much?
Joanne, these were eminent domain takings for which compensation was required and paid. But from talking to Howard and Karen Haywood and others from Myrtle Baptist Church, I have learned that such compensation was mostly inadequate for two reasons. First, at the time, all but a couple of RE Brokers were unwilling to even show houses listed for sale in Newton to African Americans, let alone sell to them, so a tight knit community within walking distance of their church and the other members of their community was effectively destroyed and those families were thrown to the four winds. Secondly, even if they could find willing sellers in Newton, the compensation given to most of these homeowners was insufficient to allow them to relocate anyplace close to their neighborhood and their church, which for many of these descendants of former slaves was the center of their lives.
@ Ald Hess-Mahan – let’s look at it simply from the standpoint of creating – yes ADDING – some open space to a neighborhood which (like the Court St neighborhood in Newtonville) has little to nothing and is densely populated. Is that so bad? Going by your reference and comments above it appears you only support retaining some of the existing open space when additional housing will also be put on a given property? Does the comprehensive plan not talk about purchasing of land and maintaining existing land as open space? Why is the city then selling off all their land (effectively giving it away) when this goes against the comprehensive plan which specifically states a goal of adding land?
You want to put 8 units on this property of which 25% – 2 units – will be affordable. Let’s say they are smaller units and each generate tax revenue of approximately $5,000 a year. That’s $40,000 in tax revenue. Now how many kids will live there? If it’s more than TWO it’s a losing proposition for the city since it’s a known fact that it costs about $17,000 a year to educate a child in Newton. So this is a nett loss to everyone except for the few people who might be lucky enough to live in one of these new units. The City of Newton loses, the neighborhood loses, and in fact every resident of Newton loses because their taxes will have to go up to compensate. Newton has about $1 billion in unfunded liabilities. When will some sense kick in and folks realize that building hundreds of new units and adding density to the city is not the solution.
@ Ald Hess-Mahan –
“…the city and the BOA will still have total control over the redevelopment of this parcel, through a carefully draft request for proposal (RFP). The RFP will include a ceiling on the number of units, the requirement that the existing open space be expanded and access provided from Crescent Street, and for smaller houses on a small footprint, all in the cause of creating and preserving as much open space as possible.”
You mean like Austin St where the RFP called for 30 units and now we face 90?
Peter, you are misinformed. The Austin Street RFP called for a minimum of 18 units and 25% affordable, as well as a minimum amount of commercial space and public parking space and a maximum height, but there was no ceiling on the number of units.
It sounds like there can be both affordable housing and a park. But a few questions:
– Would pedestrians and bicyclists have public right of way to go across Curve St. and Robinhood?
– Will parking waivers/unbundled parking/parking sharing/car sharing be allowed/promoted so that space allocated to pavement is limited?
– Could shared equity homeownership allow the city to keep a stake in the housing and allow people like Newton teachers, currently priced out of the market, to live in the community in which they teach?
Emily,
It’s simply unresponsive government. Decisions made that truly don’t compute.
Political clout varies quite a lot from community to community across Newton. That disparity is quite apparent in the treatment of open space issues brought up by the Robinhood Park proposal and the Waban Hill Reservoir project.
Influence counts.
Newton should be creating as much open space as possible as the existing housing in the city is densifying quite rapidly. Even small parks make a great difference in the quality of a neighborhood.
We are, after all, known as the Garden City, not the Fill-Every-Available-Space-With-Housing City.
But influence counts.
It’s much like the situation where Ward 5 now will have 2 brand new elementary schools which local residents can walk their children to, as residents in surrounding, less influential areas, will face redistricting and busing to remote schools rather than having their own neighborhood school.
It’s another example of central government not listening to neighborhoods and ignoring sound advice which would make Newton a more attractive and equitable community.
It remains to be seen whether a majority of Board members agree that the Robinhood Park neighborhood can be ignored, or instead decide that they should take a stand on this and make sure the little guy neighborhoods in Newton get a fair deal.
@Nathan
Public access from Crescent Street will be part of the RFP. The planning department will work with Myrtle Baptist Church, Eversource (which owns a parcel on Auburn Street adjacent to the existing playground) and a private homeowner on Curve Street on public easements providing additional points of access.
The RFP will also call for maximizing and optimizing open space, as well as minimizing the hardscape as part of this proposal.
Given the reduced size of the market rate units, which should make them more affordable to median income households, I am not sure whether shared equity is either necessary or desirable. We are already placing a lot of conditions on this RFP, and remediating the contamination at the site, creation of affordable housing, maximizing the open space, and sustainable design are the priorities.
BTW, after the discussion, a member of the public approached me about a possible source for prefab net zero energy units that could be delivered to the site. These are highly economical and would definitely reduce the cost of developing the site, freeing up more money for the other needs that must also be met.
Peter, your math is off. The creation of a park would cost $2 million, according to our commissioner of Parks & Recreation. The variable cost for each child added to the public schools is not as much as the per capita expense, which includes fixed costs for administration, facilities, utilities, debt, etc. But even if it were, in the long term, the net fiscal impact of this project pales in comparison to the cost of creating and maintaining a 2.5 acre park.
Geoff, the BOA must consider the long term best interests and needs of the community as a whole in making decisions such as these, and try to balance the local and neighborhood needs. I think by creating both housing and an expanded and improved park with greater public access we are doing just that with 70 Crescent Street.
Moreover, the aldermen have been responsive to the Joint Advisory Planning Groups appointed by the Mayor and the aldermen, consisting of members of the community with appropriate expertise from each neighborhood and city staff, to conduct a comprehensive study and make thoughtful recommendations. That has been done for Waban Hill Reservoir, Newton Centre Library and Crescent Street, and in each case, the Real Property Reuse Committee and.or the BOA has followed those recommendations.
Finally, the Waban Hill Reservoir has been on a list of parcels which have been targeted for acquisition in the city’s Open Space Plan for many years. The acquisition price for this 5 acre parcel, including 2.9 acres of open water, is based on its appraised fair market value and, and the cost of necessary improvements like replacing fencing, constructing walkways and preserving the reservoir itself and the gatehouse. While I would like to have seen more neighborhood financial participation for this project, I nevertheless voted to use $980,000 in CPA funds to make it happen. By contrast, unlike Waban Hill Reservoir, Robinhood Park is not even on the list of parcels listed in Newton’s Open Space Plan, and will cost considerably more for decontamination, regrading and improving and expanding the existing park and playground on a smaller parcel. And, as I noted above, there are $34 million of deserving parks & recreation capital projects in line in front of it.
The notion that Newton can’t afford to hold these lands vs. selling to a developer needs to be seriously reconsidered: The developer squeezes in as many housing units as possible which become occupied by families with school kids, as Peter pointed out, at 17K a pop, this quickly turns the initial profit made from the sale and annual taxes into a serious expense – which continues in perpetuity! Add in infrastructure burden and costs, traffic impacts, economic pressures, long term ecological effects, and it becomes a wonder why there is any question at all. Shall we mention the inappropriateness of Manhattanizing a suburb? As for creating affordable housing, this type of development only quickens the tide of economic gentrification which makes the area an even worse choice for subsidized families to live. Look at Portland, Oregon if you want to see proof of smart growth played out with disastrous consequences. I think Julia has it right and I hope more citizens start connecting the dots. Hey Ted, how’s that large house review you promised coming?
Nathan and others, the question is not whether there “can be” both housing and open space, it’s whether there should be in this location. This entire parcel if you combine the existing Rev. Ford Playground and the surplused land is 96,437 sq ft (2.21 acres) according to the 10/29/14 survey handed out at RPR. The Assessors Database still has it as 98,088 sq ft (2.25 acres). The 1/24/14 Planning Dept memo used the 98,088 figure, but talks about the non-surplused Rev. Ford Playground as being 37,000 sq ft, and the surplused portion as 62,000 sq ft, so that doesn’t quite add up, but whatever.
By your logic there “could be” both housing and open space at parks like the ones I mentioned above and others. Richardson and Lincoln Playgrounds in Waban: 5.4 acres each. Bobby Braceland Playground in Upper Falls, 8.8 acres. McGrath Park behind the old Warren JHS, 10.1 acres. Albemarle Field, woo-h00!, 24.9 acres.
Think of how much more money the city could raise for those deferred park improvements by selling off open space in other parts of the city. Land that’s not abutting a sound barrier would fetch a much higher price per acre.
By the way, audio of the RPR meeting is available at http://yourlisten.com/NewtonVillagesAlliance/real-property-reuse-70-crescent-st-march-24-2015
You will note that as some of the alderpersons are patting themselves on the back that “we’re doubling the size” of the existing playground, Ruthann Fuller cautions them that they can’t even guarantee that. So they can’t even guarantee 74,000 sq ft, or 1.7 acres. And by necessity, some of that 74,000 would have to be another long skinny access from the Robinhood/Crescent side (similar to the current access down the church driveway), past where the houses would be.
Chris, quite candidly, one of my co-docketers and I have a fundamental disagreement about whether the large house review should complement demolition review or add another layer of bureaucracy which in my humble opinion is neither necessary nor desirable.
Julia, I have only ever talked about expanding and improving the existing playground and providing greater public access. And since you mention it, there is a very big difference between taking publicly owned open space for the sake of affordable housing, and reusing a contaminated, asphalt covered site that has been used to store and repair heavy vehicles and has a building that used to serve as Parks & Recreation’s headquarters that is in such bad shape the city can neither afford to repair or even insure it and creating both housing and additional recreation and open space.
@ Ted Hess -Mahon,.. You are in a corner and your retoric and bloviating are ringing hollow. Example,… After tuesdays hearing “… A member of the public ( Scott Oran – Dinasoaur Development ? -who I noticed was present ), approached me about a possible source for pre fab net zero energy units that could be delivered to the site. “. Like the mobile homes that ‘could be’ delivered to the Austin Street site?
So it’s come to this for Newton??? !!! A mobile home park???!!! Voters ???
Julia, I certainly was not advocating taking existing parkland and converting it into housing. But now that you mention it, I’d favor removing some of the underutilized parking at the Cove Park in Auburndale and converting it into additional green space. Additionally, I had hopes that the ample parking at Cold Spring Park could serve Zervas, but instead, existing homes will have been removed for more pavement and car storage – for the teachers who cannot live here because of a lack of affordable housing.
The biggest tradeoff in Newton is not greenspace for homes; its the tradeoff between greenspace and pavement.
Here’s a fact: Rev Haywood was at one of the neighborhood meetings that was organized at the city hall to talk about this memorial park (it was Feb 4th, I believe). He didn’t voice any of the opposition he’s voicing now, and, he actually even offered his insights on the naming of this area in the past when the name of the park was discussed. So, I’m really surprised and baffled with the recent comments.
So is this the same Scott Oran that is the developer for Austin Street and pretty soon maybe for Newton’s First Trailer Park?
From the Website of Dinosaur Capitol Partner regarding Scott Oran – “In Newton, MA, he has served on the Mayor’s Mixed Use Task Force, was Co-Chair of the Finance Transition Committee for Mayor Setti Warren and served on the Citizen Advisory Group. ”
And Jane doesn’t believe in Insiders??
Ted, there’s also a big difference between giving up some open space as a means to acquire open space in the examples of Kesseler Woods and the Forte property by Dolan Pond which you cited last night, and giving up open space when we already own the property.
Both Kesseler and Forte were privately owned (Kesseler by then-Boston Edison, for anyone who’s new to Newton), and if the city hadn’t come up with funds to buy them, the sellers weren’t going to wait forever; they’d have been sold to someone else and developed. Here, where the city owns the property, there is no deadline, and it’s still actually being used for tree storage (which we’ll need more of as city tree planting ramps up), and vehicle parking. It’s crazy to think about selling it. The easiest land to acquire for open space is the land we already own.
Kudos to my senior colleague on the Board of Aldermen who is doing his best, grasping at every straw available, to defend the indefensible. The bottom line is that we would be selling out potential open space, and sacrificing the future quality of life for residents in the Auburndale/West Newton neighborhoods. Alderman Jay Ciccone (Ward 1, At Large) is an ardent supporter of the park as HIS family lost their home in the MassPike construction. Additionally, as this is a proposed state wide memorial, recognition can be given to Attleboro Police Officer Charlie Sciolto (My fathers partner), who lost his life in the line of duty during the Route 95/295 interchange construction. http://www.thesunchronicle.com/city-officer-memorialized/article_2651eec0-b2f9-5532-9767-000fc94efb2f.html . People did sacrifice for the prosperity of all!
I urge you to reread the input from both Julia and Elaine as they are speaking truthfully and from the heart. We still have a long way to go so this is not over as we move to the full board of Aldermen. Not noticeable by the committee vote count is that there were 6 Aldermen present in support of the park to include 2/3 of the Aldermen from W3 and W4. (Cote, Brousal-Glaser, Sangiolo, Harney, Yates, and Norton)
Blueprintbill, the member of the public was a woman who is a friend of Ald. Brousal-Glaser. Your comments about a “mobile home park” are just too ridiculous to respond to. My name, by the way, is Ted Hess-Mahan.
Ald. Cote, you too should consider why it is that the Newton Conservators, Myrtle Baptist Church, the Mayor, the Planning Department, the Commissioner of Parks & Recreation and all eight members of the Real Property Reuse Committee declined to get behind this proposal, including the Alderman-at-Large from Ward 4, which abuts 70 Crescent Street, who urged that we vote this down quickly. Your comment about “grasping at straws” is beneath you, and I will not respond to that either.
Last public comment to clarify the record: The entire Parks Commission voted to support the open space concept. The Mayor noted to me on March 24th, that he is behind the current proposal, as voted on by the Board last year, but would get behind whatever the Board of Alderman, ultimately decide to do. Further, the Mayor stated that the Memorial/Historical concept is a great one and the theme will be looked at even if housing goes in. Director of Parks and Rec, and the Planning Dept are part of the administration and I respect that they follow the Mayor’s guidance (of course). Rev Haywood is one of the most highly respected members of the community, but both he, and the Church, made it clear to me that he does not represent the church. The representative from Myrtle Baptist Church to our committee again affirmed that the church Trustees remain supportive of our proposal, and was also encouraged to learn that the city will reach out to them and address their concerns for whatever may ultimately be decided. Thank you to all for bearing with us on this project!
My point is that the term “insiders” is divisive and so called insiders are defined differently by different segments of the community.
Reading these comments, it almost seems like you are all talking about different things. I can’t make heads or tails about who agrees with whom and what groups support what.
It sounded like a nice idea. I’m surprised even a park can be so divisive with slings and arrows from accusations of cynicism to mobile home parks to political insiders. No one can agree on anything it seems.
Marti, I agree this conversation has gotten so of track that it has lost the original point I was trying to make. Let me try again. I support the mixed use of this site because I think it will be a small replica of the loving, nurturing village that I and many others grew up in. Think about it 8 families or individuals living together with a playground and open space at their front door. Of the almost 2.5 areas the housing foot print will be no larger than 12,00sf much less than what actually could be built on the site. Because of the previous use of the site the cost to remediate it is better delegated to a developer.
My final point is that if this project is built I have great faith that the surrounding community will welcome their new neighbors to the neighborhood, invite them to their annual block party as they have with the many new families that have joined their community.
So each house will be 1500 sq feet?
“Because of the previous use of the site the cost to remediate it is better delegated to a developer.”
And would that developer happen to be the Scott Oran?
All I see Rev Haywood, is you sticking to what you have already said, while there are many others with different opinions, different statements on footprint limits, church members who don’t agree with you, others who lost homes who differ with you, someone who lives on Robinhood Lane who signed the petition, an Alderperson who says there is no guarantee of a larger playground, many who say it’s hardly accessible, and community members with other ideas. I don’t see a RFP that actually says the developer must refurbish the land, build the 8 units in a certain way or anything else because there isn’t one yet.
I don’t live there but I drive down Auburn Street often and around the area and I see how completely it has changed from homes to million dollar condos in a short period of time, so I see all the other sides too. It would be nice if everyone wasn’t so positive they were right and maybe find some common ground. (I know, but I just didn’t see it coming.)
Just because your vision sounds good to you doesn’t actually take away from what others’ visions sound like to them.
Joanne, let it go. You are obsessed with Scott Oran. The RFP has not even been put out to bid. CAN DO and/or the Newton Housing Authority may be interested, as well as other developers, including those who do NZE housing. And I intend to reach out to the Newton Conservators, the Conservation Commission and others to make this project turn out best for the housing as well as open space and recreational needs of the city.
Can you tell me church members who don’t agree with me and yes I don’t speak for the church but I can speak for many who lost their homes. I will always be on the side of open hearts and open opportunity over open space and selfish zoning. The character of our community is not defined by the type of housing but the people who live in them.
This was the site of a construction company from 1947 to 1963 when it was taken by the Transit Authority. The state used it until Newton Parks and Rec moved there in 1969. Is this the land that was re-purchased by the city in 1969? I think it is. Interesting.
THM – No more obsessed than you are about the leaf Blowers.
Marti and others (especially anyone who wonders why the Turnpike takings are “a thing”), there is a thorough and very readable account of the building of the Mass Pike extension through Newton in a research paper written by a NNHS junior, Toby Berkman, in 1997 and published in The Concord Review: http://www.tcr.org/tcr/essays/EPrize_Turnpike.pdf
When I asked if this was “a thing” I wasn’t asking if it had happened, I wanted to know if the desire to create a memorial here was sincerely motivated by a desire to create a memorial or if it was “designed to help fortify an opposition to housing?”
Trish responded that it was the fourth of four reasons to reconsider the housing proposal. That seemed like an honest and reasonable answer that’s been reinforced by the comments since.
Julia, I’ve read it and highly recommend it. It’s a great read and a wonderful telling of Newton’s story during that tine. It tells about the many train routes that were here first and how hard the mayors of the time fought to keep the toll road from being built, Prudential’s role and Newton’s Redevelopment and acceptance of the value it ended up being to the city. There are also some good reads about other periods in Newton, like why it became The Garden City, beautiful stories of the 1800’s, a book on the History of Newton written in 18something, great maps, and Atlas’s.
This is my last word here.
The JAPG Report was put together by city staff and volunteers, who recommended that the property be sold to a developer who would build 8-20 units, including at least 25% affordable units, provide public access to the existing playground and collaborate with Myrtle Baptist Church on accommodating the needs of this historic community. In response to neighborhood concerns, the Real Property Reuse committee adopted the least intensive residential development of the site, sought to expand and improve the existing playground, and the planning department’s recommendations for Net Zero Energy residential units to reduce energy consumption and costs. I continue to believe that this represents the appropriate balance of citywide and local needs and interests.
Redevelopment of a portion of the property will fund the expansion and improvements and create public access from the Crescent Street side of the property to a neighborhood that previously had no convenient way to get to the playground. As I have said before, I will reach out to community organizations to help support and assist in the rejuvenation of the site. This is the kind of compromise and collaboration that is essential in order to get this project done in the immediate future, not ten or fifteen years down the line when funds may or may not materialize. I sincerely hope my colleagues, as well as the neighborhood, will come to support this approach as the most feasible way to clean up the site and make it an asset that both the neighborhood and the city as a whole can be proud of.
@ Ted Hess-Mahan. It’s great that this is your last word here, ( I’ll believe that when I don’t see them ), but in spite of ‘ your belief ‘, that the insider group that pushed the housing into the proposed park imputed some sort of ‘ balance’ here, ‘ my belief ‘ is that ‘your belief ‘ is wrong! ‘ My Belief ‘ is that ‘your belief’ flys in the face of the majority of your constituents in this neighborhood ! You believe that your constituents should help build housing for the masses in Newton. My belief is that Newton is already built, that home owners here want to protect and enhance their investment and their environment. I believe that the political ambitions of many of our elected officials, in attempting to secure, memorialize or monumentalize their tenure here are way too ambitious to make changes to the physical fabric of the city. I’m just a believer!
@Bill: First off, one dozen or less units is hardly “houses for the masses.”
I’m also wondering how you are able to state with such confidence that most people don’t want this? I’m not aware of any polling. My guess would be the “majority” of people don’t even know about this and are just busy with their daily lives.
That’s not an argument for or against this project, just a request to debate the merits of the project instead of unsupportable claims that neither “side” can honestly claim.
I also wonder why you feel the need to vilify elected officials who are willing to advocate for affordable housing here or anywhere as “ambitious” while those who oppose it presumably aren’t?
Can’t it just be that human beings have different priorities and visions?
Greg, you’re getting silly. I think I’m channelling Marti-to-Jane here, but of course I know you know the Turnpike takings happened. How stupid do you think I think you are? (And I don’t think you’re stupid at all; you just like being contrarian.) But you did sound like you didn’t think it still mattered to people. And for some people it does.
@Julia: Me? Likes being contrarian? So not true!
I asked how much it mattered. Trish said it was forth on the [official powerpoint] list. I accept that as entirely an acceptable answer. I’m sure for others it may be different.
For the record, I was simply pointing out that when I followed the link in the original post and read the presentation, I saw that the “memorial” argument was just one of four arguments listed. I was not involved with this effort, so I don’t know which argument is considered most important – I’d imagine it varies by individual.