Great news for supporters of the performing arts! The Newton City Council by a 18-5 vote, approved a plan on Monday to restore the Turtle Lane Playhouse, in Auburndale, the TAB reports. The project includes 16 units of housing plus a new three-story office building.
Councilor Jay Ciccone stepped behind the rail, which is a parliamentary way to not vote. Here’s the vote…
Councilor | Vote | |
1 | Jay Ciccone | A |
1 | Scott Lennon | N |
1 | Alison Leary | Y |
2 | Susan Albright | Y |
2 | Jake Auchincloss | Y |
2 | Emily Norton | N |
3 | Jim Cote | Y |
3 | Ted Hess-Mahan | Y |
3 | Barbara Brousal-Glaser | Y |
4 | Lenny Gentile | N |
4 | Amy Sangiolo | Y |
4 | Jay Harney | Y |
5 | Deb Crossley | Y |
5 | Brian Yates | N |
5 | John Rice | Y |
6 | Vicki Danberg | Y |
6 | Greg Schwartz | Y |
6 | Dick Blazar | Y |
7 | Ruthanne Fuller | Y |
7 | Marc Laredo | Y |
7 | Lisle Baker | N |
8 | David Kalis | Y |
8 | Rick Lipof | Y |
8 | Cheryl Lappin Y |
Interesting. I note the breakdown of the Ward 2 councilors. Seems like Jake is his own man. Good for him.
I haven’t followed this project as much as I’ve should, but I love the idea of a renovated theatre. It seems like it get us that, some office space, some housing. Feels like a good compromise, but I’m interested in what folks more on the NVA side of the slate think (really).
Interesting. I note the breakdown of the Ward 2 councilors. Seems like Jake is his own man. Good for him.
I haven’t followed this project as much as I’ve should, but I love the idea of a renovated theatre. It seems like it get us that, some office space, some housing. Feels like a good compromise, but I’m interested in what folks more on the NVA side of the slate think (really).
Also, how did the vote here different than the vote for Austin Street? Besides Jake, which I’ve already mentioned. I’m not surprised regarding Jake’s vote, it fits his description of smaller deals with mixed uses that he referenced a few times in the various debates.
Can the Nomadic theatre now have a home? Or is the Nomadic part of the charm? Jerry, what say you?
Also, how did the vote here different than the vote for Austin Street? Besides Jake, which I’ve already mentioned. I’m not surprised regarding Jake’s vote, it fits his description of smaller deals with mixed uses that he referenced a few times in the various debates.
Can the Nomadic theatre now have a home? Or is the Nomadic part of the charm? Jerry, what say you?
For this I am glad. Especially the idea of the theater back. I hope it works out to the benefit of all involved.
For this I am glad. Especially the idea of the theater back. I hope it works out to the benefit of all involved.
@fiignewtonville – we’Re delighted that Turtle Lane will be restored but no. We are nomadic to our core and will stick to wandering the highways and byways of greater Newton. Besides, Turtle Lanes’s special permit has,no provisions for our camels.
@fiignewtonville – we’Re delighted that Turtle Lane will be restored but no. We are nomadic to our core and will stick to wandering the highways and byways of greater Newton. Besides, Turtle Lanes’s special permit has,no provisions for our camels.
Hump(h)!
Hump(h)!
Fig, from what I read many NVA members were always happy with the reopening of the theater. It was the addition of a restaurant and over 20 units of housing they were against. The abutters, who didn’t want the restaurant or the number of units (can’t remember the exact number) in the first proposal, were joined by the NVA and their grassroots organizers to work with council members to see what a compromise might look like. Again from what I read, they are quite happy that the restaurant was dropped and the development was reduced to 16 units of housing as that fits better within the area. Seems reasonable to me.
I know they worked with Jay Ciccone. It could be that they actually wanted nothing done since he abstained, but that is just a guess on my part.
Fig, from what I read many NVA members were always happy with the reopening of the theater. It was the addition of a restaurant and over 20 units of housing they were against. The abutters, who didn’t want the restaurant or the number of units (can’t remember the exact number) in the first proposal, were joined by the NVA and their grassroots organizers to work with council members to see what a compromise might look like. Again from what I read, they are quite happy that the restaurant was dropped and the development was reduced to 16 units of housing as that fits better within the area. Seems reasonable to me.
I know they worked with Jay Ciccone. It could be that they actually wanted nothing done since he abstained, but that is just a guess on my part.
I am thrilled about the reopening of the theater!!!
I am thrilled about the reopening of the theater!!!
The reality is that without the housing or office, no way a new theatre gets built without major public subsidy. I’m surprised the restaurant was objected to, in NEwtonville I love when new restaurants open. Was that just a parking issue?
Sounds like a good compromise. Can any of the “no” votes explain why they didn’t support it?
The reality is that without the housing or office, no way a new theatre gets built without major public subsidy. I’m surprised the restaurant was objected to, in NEwtonville I love when new restaurants open. Was that just a parking issue?
Sounds like a good compromise. Can any of the “no” votes explain why they didn’t support it?
I agreed with former Alderman Gentile that the office space was too big and that it would have been better with the third floor under the mansard roof eliminated. (This probably would have spared the large tree near the front of the property.)
As I noted, I saw “1776′ at the Playhouse, and former Alderman Gentile’s position reminded me of John Adams in that play. Both officials asked plaintively “Is anybody there ?
Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?” Like another delegate in the play, I answered yes to those three questions because I did not see major harm to the project in cutting it back slightly more (1200 square feet) and significant benefit to the neighborhood?. I hope that future productions will inspire thoughtfulness on the part of theatre goers.
Councilor Brian Yates
I agreed with former Alderman Gentile that the office space was too big and that it would have been better with the third floor under the mansard roof eliminated. (This probably would have spared the large tree near the front of the property.)
As I noted, I saw “1776′ at the Playhouse, and former Alderman Gentile’s position reminded me of John Adams in that play. Both officials asked plaintively “Is anybody there ?
Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?” Like another delegate in the play, I answered yes to those three questions because I did not see major harm to the project in cutting it back slightly more (1200 square feet) and significant benefit to the neighborhood?. I hope that future productions will inspire thoughtfulness on the part of theatre goers.
Councilor Brian Yates
@fignewtonville, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the vast majority of Auburndale residents (myself included!) would have been thrilled to have a restaurant there and are really disappointed that it was taken out. We have so few dining options in the ‘dale, and the original design with the restaurant seemed like a perfect addition to Auburndale square.
The restaurant was removed from the plan relatively early in the process, without a ton of public discourse as I remember. I’m not positive, but I think it was removed as the result of pushback from abutters.
So instead, there will be office space where the restaurant was supposed to be. I’m sure the office space will be lovely for the handful of people that work there, but it really doesn’t do anything to add to the vitality of our sleepy little village. And we Auburndale folks will continue to have to get in our cars to go out to eat.
@fignewtonville, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the vast majority of Auburndale residents (myself included!) would have been thrilled to have a restaurant there and are really disappointed that it was taken out. We have so few dining options in the ‘dale, and the original design with the restaurant seemed like a perfect addition to Auburndale square.
The restaurant was removed from the plan relatively early in the process, without a ton of public discourse as I remember. I’m not positive, but I think it was removed as the result of pushback from abutters.
So instead, there will be office space where the restaurant was supposed to be. I’m sure the office space will be lovely for the handful of people that work there, but it really doesn’t do anything to add to the vitality of our sleepy little village. And we Auburndale folks will continue to have to get in our cars to go out to eat.