The docket item to reverse the surplusing of 70 Crescent Street goes to the full Board tomorrow night, Monday, April 6. For those of you interested in a closer look at the property, here’s my video of the Thursday morning site visit organized by Alderman Jim Cote. Sorry I didn’t add ‘lower thirds,’ but for those of you who don’t recognize them, other principals are Alexandra Ananth from Planning, alders Ruthann Fuller, Amy Sangiolo, Barbara Brousal-Glaser, Susan Albright, and Emily Norton, and Auburndale resident and one of the lead Robinhood Park organizers, Elaine Rush Arruda.
As I noted in the earlier thread, despite the impression by some members of Real Property Reuse that they’d be doubling the size of the existing playground even if eight units of housing are built, it appears that the only portion that Planning thinks logical to possibly add to the park area, is the trapezoid of ‘almost’ 20,000 square feet south of the driveway. The rest, it appears, would be offered in the Request for Proposal to developers. Here’s a PDF of the site survey that we’re looking at in the video.
And no one seems to realize that even 2.21 acres is not a big park. (If it looks spacious in the video, it’s probably because I’m shooting with a wide angle lens, mainly to get close enough for decent sound without a directional mic.) At the end are shots of the current townhouse development that’s happening around Crescent and Auburn Streets, for which there seems to be no end in sight.
A big thank you to Julia for posting this video and to Jim for presenting things in a well researched and balanced fashion.
If people saw more of this sort of conversation, they’d have more faith that decisions were being made by the BOA based on facts and logic rather than political correctness or political ambition.
What Charlie Said
Charlie and Joanne, thanks for taking the time to watch on Easter!
The plan for housing presented by the City planning office at last Tuesdays hearing showed 8 units of housing lined up along the turnpike barrier wall. The comment made by Ms Anath that what we were hearing was just ‘ ambient ‘ noise there fore it could be dismissed as a problem was fallacious at least. At the beginning of Julia’s video one could hardly hear conversation given the ‘ ambient’ noise level. That combined with the possibility of lining up housing along the wall and the resultant view from ones kitchen or living room, not to mention upper level bedrooms, suggests to me the worst site possible for a person to live with !
As Julia’s video demonstrates,especially at the very end, is that this neighborhood is built out. It is a real stretch to suggest much less promote, additional housing in what should become a relieving pocket park !
Housing here is rediculous !
I must disagree with Blueprintbill on one point. The loud ambient noise early on was the noise of Parks & Rec vehicles, because Parks & Rec is still using the property, which leads me to point out once again, the fact that we don’t have the money right now to transform it into a park, is no reason to sell it. There is no urgency, because we own it. Unlike Kesseler Woods and the Forte land, which had to be acquired quickly or lost forever.
As I say during the video, I did not find the ambient sound at ground level particularly troublesome. I think the sound barriers are effective at ground level at least. But the desirability of living next to a sound barrier to me is irrelevant in this case, because what does matter is that this neighborhood needs all the open space it can get, and it’s worth waiting for.
I don’t get this one at all, especially after watching part of the video. If the city has the opportunity to sell this piece of property that has no aesthetic or historic value, then it should do so.
Jane, you and others in parts of the city with ample parkland like Cold Spring Park or Nahanton Park may not think much of this space, but here on the north side it looks pretty good, because it’s what’s available. And fyi, the Newton Conservators’ page about Cold Spring Park notes:
So once a dump is not always a dump.
Just this February, Eric Reenstierna, past president of the Newton Conservators, wrote about the need to “build” open space in Newton, saying
You can read the full article here: http://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20150222/Opinion/150229497 He gives as an example, trying to acquire riverfront industrial properties over 30 or 40 years. Here we have property we already own, so we’re ahead of the game.
This clip was really interesting. I think it would be really helpful for the Parks and Rec department to provide information about why this site is still being used before the Board votes on this item. It doesn’t look like it is surplus.
I favor converting the land to a park if it is surplus. The idea about renovating the office, which was originally a house to affordable units is also a great idea since it is historic, and seems to still be in good condition.
@ Jeff,
As a former member of the Newton HistoricalCommission I would agree the this brick gambrell colonial house would be found Historic and preferably preserved if it were to come up for a demolition review. As I was preparing a sketch for a proposed park on this site it occoured to me that this house would make a great place for a couple of publically subsidized affordable units and I am here to to take credit for the idea and to champion the possibility of this conversion as the spark that kick starts a debate for a park otherwise devoid of further housing. It’s occupants would have to live within earshot of the turnpike ‘ambient’ noise but at least their homes would be within an acoustically superior brick structure, and their backyard view would be new parkland.
When every development becomes a battleground, you end up harming the credibility of your cause. This property just looks like a good one to let go of. It certainly isn’t valuable enough to name a park after the many people who lost their homes to the Mass. Pike. If the city wants to honor those families (and I think that’s a worthy goal), then it should do so in a place.
Julia – I lived in the northside for 26 years and have taught in northside schools since 1988. Just two years ago, I shared common ground with the people who oppose development, but at this point it appears that the group has morphed into one that fights every development. As a result, you’ve totally lost me. In my estimation, every project should be judged on its merits, with location as a key element: Rowe St. makes no sense to me, Wells Ave. just escapes me, Austin St. makes sense, St. Phillip Neri makes sense, the expansion of Zervas makes sense (and is less than 2 blocks from my home). Tearing down moderately priced homes and replacing them with $2m mansions makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Jane,
And just what was your basis / criterion for your past opposition to development? You oppose Wells Ave, and Rowe Street,.. You favor Austin Street and St Philip Neri ??? Huh ???
To my mind ‘Development’ equals more density! Increased density equals more cars, more asphalt, more traffic, more kids in our schools, loss of green space and tree canopy, longer shadows on neighbors property and in general the derogation of the the cities character, the same character that attracted people to move / come here in the first place !
This same derogation equals a loss in value both economic and aesthetic that we have the expectation to maintain!
As I am speaking with voters, a consistent theme I hear is the desire to protect the green space we have. I think the Robinhood Park is a terrific idea for a part of Newton that is more dense and relatively more affordable than some other parts.
And, in fact, research has shown that people living near green space even have better health outcomes. Researchers from the UK’s University of Exeter in a 5-year study of more than 1000 people, found that those living near green space were happier and had lower levels of anxiety and depression than when they had lived in areas without green space:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moving-area-with-more-green-space-can-improve-your-mental-health-years-180949348/?no-ist
Hi Lynne – How do you think the City should pay for the establishment and maintenance of Robinhood Park?
If you suggest using CPA monies, would you propose the CPA cover the entire cost and what should be done if the CPA rejects the proposal?
Bill-I was mostly concerned about the tear downs and had several conversations with people who were questioning development, but as it became apparent that the group who opposed tear downs had broadened their stance to opposition to any and every development, you lost me. It’s too rigid an approach to development in the city.
I commend Jim Cote because I’m not sure what side of the issue he’s on after watching about 10 minutes of the video, but it was enough to convince me that this property should remain surplussed and I hadn’t had much of an opinion about it before seeing it. Jim’s a good guy. Some way of acknowledging the
On a final note, the budget for the $300m we spent on 2 capital projects between 2000 and 2010 without a debt exclusion override included over $5m in monies from new development (budget presentation, Sandy Pooler: 2005/6). If we don’t get that revenue, then where does that $5m plus come from? As far as I can tell, the only other possible revenue source is an override or more tear downs of moderately priced home that are replaced with $2m houses that command higher property taxes.
Lynne just got my vote.
Lucia, CPA never covers the entire cost of anything. It won’t cover the entire cost of the Waban Hill Reservoir park, and no one knows yet where the rest of that money is coming from. No one expects the non-CPA city budget to cover the rest of the cost of either park either. If that were a reason not to try to do something, not much big worth doing would ever get done.
Jane, you can’t just look at new revenue from development without looking at new costs. How much of that $5 million was from Chestnut Hill Square. Commercial development will cover its costs on an ongoing basis. Residential development on average will not.
Nice job.
Julie – I’d also like to know where the money to fix up Waban Res. is coming from. I don’t want to pay more in taxes for new parks or to have tax money diverted from building/road/sewer repairs etc., which I think are already underfunded and should be a higher priority.
So the question remains – where is the money for these projects coming from? What is the financial plan and timeline?
Hi Lucia, I agree, financial concerns are not something to take lightly. Friends of Robinhood Park (a la Friends of Hemlock Gorge, Bullough’s Pond Association, Friends of Wellington Park, Friends of Waban Hill Reservoir) is committed to raising funds to create and maintain the park. Funds may come from other sources including state for both clean up (state police had been located there) and for the proposed nature of the park – a Turnpike memorial. The issue at hand is to revert the land back to non-surplus so residents and the city have an opportunity to decide what is best before the land slips out of our hands.
Jane,
@ ” too rigid an approach to Development in our city “,.. Why should there be any ‘approach’ to development ? What is What’s in it ( development ) for the tax paying citizenry besides overcrowded roads, schools and construction sites ? The city is a mature entity, there is no land left. There is no good reason to urbanize it unless we were developers ! We like it the way it is. Thats why we live here isnt it? Protect and husband what we have, It’s nice. Development certainly doesn’t make it better . Sustain / grow the local economy by hiring your local carpenter or electricial contractor to fixup / maintain you own property and call it a charitable contribution !
@Bill: Are you saying that not a single home or building in Newton should be replaced with something different?And there is not a single parcel in our city where a new apartment building or different configuration of homes should be built? Not one? Anywhere? Citywide? And is this forever? Newton should be frozen in time and forever look like it does on April 6, 2015?
Bll – Who are the “we” you refer to?
In two posts, I inadvertently deleted the part in which I express support for a commemoration for the homes lost to the Mass. Pike but that it should be in a place where more residents will actually see it and learn about this part of Newton’s history.
After a lengthy discussion, Ald. Sangiolo made a motion to recommit to Real Property Reuse, which passed 19-4 with 1 absent (Lipof). Read it in tweets by @RobinhoodPrk and @NewtonVillages. The park proponents were among the 19.
@NewtonVillages tweets also covered the earlier part of the evening, a joint meeting of the Board of Aldermen and School Committee to hear a presentation on the Zervas and Cabot School construction projects.
And the Aldermanic Chamber has a terrible smell on entering, due to a new rubber mat to protect the floor on the right aisle, that is apparently off-gassing something, causing a number of alders to sound terribly hoarse, which I mistook for an outbreak of bronchitis. There’s got to be a better material.
That rubber runner was put down to protect the newly refinished floor in the aldermanic chamber after someone gouged the entire length of it dragging something into the War Memorial, which is a little like closing the barn door after all the horses got out.
Very impressive round 1 as the Robinhood Park Committee was able to get the message across to the Board of Alderman that areas of Wards 1, 2, 3, and 4 need more open space and community parks. Clearly some egos to work on with the Reuse Committee, as many relied on dated information to state a case against open space. This was obvious to all in the gallery, and the Board members that visited the site and read the history of 70 Crescent St. We will continue to provide current and reliable information to the Reuse committee as we work on the RFP to stay focussed on the park.
Audio (with tracks) of 4/6/15 Board of Aldermen meeting:
http://yourlisten.com/NewtonVillagesAlliance/board-of-aldermen-april-6-2015-70-crescent-st