This just in from Sandra Guryan of the Newton Public Schools and Joshua Morse with the City of Newton…
We would like to clarify the purpose of the joint Cabot School Building Committee/Design Review Committee (CSBC/DRC) meeting on May 5. The sole goal of the meeting is to ask the CSBC to vote on whether or not the group wishes to have DiNisco reevaluate an older design. If a decision is made to do this, a new schematic would be presented to CSBC/DRC in approximately 4 weeks for a vote on which design to bring forward to the City Council for site plan approval.
The School Building Committee voted on April 5 to approve the design of the building leaving some room to move the gym a bit closer to Cabot St. The committee approved of the circulation plan where buses would pull off on Cabot St. and not enter a driveway in front of the school. The location of the gym as an almost separate part of the building overlooking the park was a source of concern expressed by a number of people during the course of many public meetings.
A few months ago the City Council approved funding to acquire the property at 23 Parkview Avenue. While the acquisition of that property greatly enhances options for site circulation, traffic flow, and student drop-off and pick-up, it also offered an opportunity to relook at previous site plans and building layouts. There was one layout among the many previously brought forward that was rejected principally because it was too close to 23 Parkview Ave. This design places the gym on the north side tucked into the building and leaves the old building façade largely untouched. This design accommodates the school program that the School Committee passed. School program is the first and foremost aspect of designing a new school that we must meet.
Whether or not we choose to reassess the site plan, the following is unchanged:
- The new Cabot School must meet the approved educational program.
- The portion of Parkview Avenue from the school to Cabot St. will be permanently closed.
- The students and staff of Cabot will move to the Carr School as planned in the fall of 2017 and will not spend longer in the old Cabot building than previously anticipated.
- School and City officials will make certain that we are not compromising our work with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) nor their commitment of funds to the Cabot project.
- The circulation plan advanced on April 5 would still be used.
The Cabot School is being designed to last 100 years, and as such we really want to make sure we are building the right school for the students, teachers, parents, and Cabot neighborhood.
We look forward to working with the City Council, the School Committee, the School Department, parents, and the community as we expeditiously work through this process to provide the best Cabot School for our children and our community.
Sandra Guryan
Joshua Morse
On walk to school day, I thought I’d offer a correction: the current design has no driveway in front of the school! It’s one of the best features of the plan. Oddly, there’s no mention of children walking in the city’s statement. Vehicle-first thinking has led to some very flawed designs…
“A few months ago the City Council approved funding to acquire the property at 23 Parkview Avenue….There was one layout among the many previously brought forward that was rejected principally because it was too close to 23 Parkview Ave. ”
If the funds were approved months ago, and there was a site layout that was “better” but rejected because of adjacency to this property, why didn’t this come up months ago when a delay could have been avoided? Why did the CSBC vote 17-0 for the current site layout last month, AFTER the property had been purchased?
The statement says that it was “principally” rejected for being too close– what were the other reasons for rejecting that plan?
I think completeness is important as well. The statement says that the sole purpose is to decide whether to evaluate another plan in 4 weeks, but my understanding is that our timeline with MSBA requires a plan submission THIS month, which would mean a vote to look at another plan would already begin a delay in the timeline. If my understanding is correct, that’s an important detail that should be clearly communicated.
The children at Cabot have waiting long enough. Adults needs to be held accountable for their actions. The adults were the ones that decided to make Cabot the third school to be built even though it was rated the worst by MSBA. The adults were the ones that decided to hang on to a fanciful dream of preserving a building on an extremely small site with residents surrounding three sides, creating an almost impossible task instead of the easier task of creating a fully new building. The adults are the ones that seem to have done an insufficient job planning for any unforeseen stumbling blocks– its been YEARS since we committed to a new school for Cabot, yet somehow we’re at risk of missing timelines over what seems like weeks.
The adults make the decisions, yet the children are being told to suffer the consequences. The Cabot kids have waited long enough.
You want to propose a delay to the plan? Then offer up who should resign for letting us get to this point. Cabot should not have to wait until 2019 for a new school. Its time for some accountability. Or move forward with the plan as is.
My personal perspective, as a Cabot parent and someone who has attended many but not all of the CSBC/DRC meetings:
The Ward 2 City Councilors are holding the CSBC/DRC hostage with a threat that the full City Council will vote down the current approved plan. They are forcing the Committees to vote for a pause tonight (to consider a “new plan” submitted by a small group of residents no one has hired that is actually very similar to a plan considered and rejected over a year ago). Then they will turn around and use the “Pause vote” to convince the City Council that the current approved plan is not supported by the Committees or “the community.”
500 signatures and counting on a petition introduced three days ago should clarify what “the community” actually supports. The fact that tonight’s meeting is about reconsidering a design instead of a vote by the City Council to support the plan approved one month ago is outrageous.
Paul, to your point on what the other reasons were for rejecting putting the gym on the north side of the school, these are the ones I can remember hearing at the meetings.
1. In the approved plan, both the gym and the cafeteria open out onto recreational outdoor space. This is preferable for the children so that they can have maximum time outdoors for recess and exercise. I don’t see how this is possible if the gym and the cafeteria are lumped together on the north side.
2. Putting the gym on the north side with the classrooms will have implications for how the classrooms are distributed. The Cabot principal has always stressed that keeping the classrooms together is essential for collaboration between teachers and for the children to be able to study and learn together at times.
3. With the approved design, the gym is more isolated so that it can be closed off separately from the rest of the school for community events, summer camp, after school activities, etc. This is better for safety and as a community asset.
4. The way the gym is positioned now in the approved design, the entrance is at center court. The designer stated and the principal concurred that this is the preferred way new schools build gyms because both sides of the gym can be used separately for classes without students having to walk through and disrupt the gym class on the other end of the gym which would happen if the entrance is on the end. Not sure if the entrance could be at mid-court if the gym was on the north end with all the other additions.
5. Remember that a gym does not have windows most of the way up. So positioning it one the north side, which is near the most residents, is going to get pushback. I know I wouldn’t like looking out of my house to see a wall!
I think it is now being framed by advocates of taking this pause that the gym was just “stuck on” to the southeast corner of the school because no one knew where to put it and so now it should be reconsidered. But that is not true. Thoughtful, intelligent people considered many options for the gym, including putting it on the north end, and it was decided that the southeast corner was the best option overall. Nothing has changed this in my opinion.
The site plan needs a re-look and the design team should be thanked for a willingness to reconsider after acquiring the Potter property. There are alternatives which will work much better at lower cost, and will avoid delays from both the Historic Commission and the City Council.
Give peace a chance!
The design team has already looked at many plans. This was the best of them. It’s time to move on. It’s time to move this project to the City Council.
Neither public opinion nor common sense support a pause at this point to reconsider an old idea (at added cost no less!). Distancing the gym from the classroom areas is a feature, not a bug and promotes ease of community access and shared use – another upside. Time to move forward, bot backwards. On to the full City Council!
The design team voted AFTER the Potter property was purchased. The concept behind the “new” design was also previously reviewed and rejected because it was not optimal for many reasons including how the school will be used! Let’s stop wasting time and resources and get moving with the plan that was already approved.
and there you have it.
http://twitter.com/JDameTAB/status/728393560869974017
I have to say, for a process that seemed to be going pretty well, the least few months have been a disaster. I leave it for our village councilors to defend themselves, I have no intention of doing so. I can’t even explain it.
So at the very least, if I was a betting man, Cabot students will not be moving into Cabot January 1, 2019.
I’ll point out that our principal, the woman most in tune with the needs of the Cabot students, has now been ignored multiple times. At some point, if the school building committee, the city councilors, the parks and recs commission don’t want to listen to our principal or the hundreds of Cabot parents who have signed petition and petition, attended so many meetings, I have to question the process. I have to question our leadership. I have to question the end result.
So many things to discuss, but I hope others who were there will post as well. It was a very long and frustrating meeting.
I had to leave for another meeting, but the process in the last month has been a disaster. The city totally botched it. The Councilors botched it. The lack of communication from the city to the Cabot community has been stunning. Pat emails from the Councilors saying the same thing over and over, with little to no substance. A veiled threat that the City Council wouldn’t pass the project if the 3 Ward 2 Councilors supported it. An unadvertised morning meeting with Councilors, members of the DRC, and city staff.
One month ago, the DRC and the Cabot School Building Committee voted 23-0-1 to pass a design for the school, with not one person expressing a concern about the Mass. Historical Society or the City Council. Not one. Then one month later, they reverse the vote, suddenly claiming the Mass. Historical Society and the City Council will never pass the project. Something happened between these two meetings that’s not being shared with the public.
Jane, it isn’t the MA Historical Society. There is the Newton Historic Commission and the the Massachusetts Historic Commission. The Newton Historic Commission gets to weigh in here. I know you just mistyped, just didn’t want all the parents sending angry emails to MA Historic Commission!
I truly don’t understand what our village councilors are thinking. There are a number of parents who are truly furious. Lack of communication, non public meetings, patronizing attitudes…geez.
My understanding today in conversations with several Councilors is that there were residents who were going to file whatever you file with the Mass. Historical Commission to stop the project. It appears that the city caved. The patronizing tone was very difficult to deal with.
Well unless there are federal funds we don’t need Section 106 review. So I’m guessing they are talking about a Chapter 254 review with the MHC. But since we have a state grant, I’ve always assumed that is part of the process currently…well…in process. You seem to be implying that this is some sort of gotcha process by opponents. But Chapter 254 is required regardless. The threat isn’t a threat if it is part of the process.
Seriously, does no one in Newton know how to line up a construction project? Why is the City Council not part of the process earlier? No one talks to the MSBA except the Mayor? No one talks to MHC? Maybe the city needs to hire a development consultant to help them…
Jane, I’m not directing any of this at you obviously, but maybe Ted was onto something when he said our city councilors should get some training….
But hey, our city councilors are sure to post dozens of posts about the charter commission. Bully for them. I certainly know they can communicate about that important topic.
What good is Ward representation if it doesn’t represent? What good is at-large representation based on the village if they disappear when they are needed the most?
I understand that there is possibility that there is now “new information” and perhaps they truly are conflicted. Perhaps they are making a show of a change so they can appease a vocal minority. Perhaps they are willing to sacrifice the educational design of the school for overall aesthetics. I’ve given them the benefit of the doubt thus far.
After tonight, I think most of the Cabot community no longer has faith in any of them, or the committee, to do the right thing. Threat or no threat Jane, this process has been incompetent, and our leadership in Newtonville truly lacking.
The Cabot School Building Committee voted tonight to explore a site design that would maintain the educational program of the current design, but allow the gym to be moved to the north side, preserving the historic facade. I get that some posters here don’t think that’s important, but I do. So do many Newtonville residents. My job is to listen to everyone, weigh the facts myself, and make what I think is the best decision. Not everyone will be happy with where I end up. Some people were glaring at me throughout tonight’s meeting, other came up to thank me. That’s the nature of our democracy.
I hope the meeting also cleared up some misconceptions that had been communicated in various emails in the last few days. For example, Cabot students will not be in Cabot any longer than they would have if a new design is chosen. Cabot students may be in Carr for 2 years, but there was a good chance they would have been there for 2 years even with the current plan. The alternative site design brings some additional costs, it also brings additional savings, we won’t know for a few weeks what the net result will be.
For those who are willing to have a conversation with me about all of this, I am happy to speak with you. I have had the chance to set the record straight with numerous Cabot parents over the last few days and am happy to continue doing so. My contact information is here.
@Emily
I would appreciate a point-by-point response to this. You’ve posted extensively on the Charter Commission, you can address your constituents here with more than one post. Its the fair thing to do.
1. Timing. You say that preserving the historic facade is important, yet you voted LAST MONTH against that very premise. The Potter purchase was months ago, how is this only an issue now? Why did you not raise this months ago to avoid a potential delay?
2. Site design. It keeps being repeated that the alternative site design maintains the educational program. But its less optimal. It creates a layout that no school would choose when starting from scratch. Most meaningfully, classrooms are broken up throughout the layout. This means that children will be wasting more time walking through halls, whether it be going to art/music or “buddy” activities across grades. Educational instruction will need to end a minute or two earlier to allow for this, each time, each class, every year. Its a permanent loss of educational time for generations. For a historic facade? Really? The principal has argued against this layout from the very start. Beyond the delay, how are you making the determination that preserving the historic facade outweighs doing what is best for our kids? Or if you don’t agree that its less optimal, how have you determined that the alternative site design is as good or better when the Cabot principal has stated its not?
3. Transparency. You been espousing at length about your concerns on the Charter Commission. Multiple posts here, and extraordinarily long newsletter from you pretty much solely focused on the topic. Nothing on Cabot. You’ve been hiding. If this is your view, you should have said so BEFORE last night. If your opinion is that some delay and a less optimal site design is worth a better view, you’ve had ample opportunity to say it. Say it in your newsletter. Respond to the multiple posters who have pleaded with you to provide some communication, some transparency. Why couldn’t you communicate anything earlier, particularly in contrast to how you’ve handled the charter commission?
4. Accountability. The reality is, irrespective of where we go now, we should have never gotten to this point. We’ve been planning Cabot for at least 18 months. The CSBC vote to preserve the building happened last May. There has been a YEAR since then to figure out the site design. The points that have been raised were clearly known a year ago. The Potter purchase was months ago– a proactive organization would have been developing alternative plans in anticipation of the Potter purchase, so that no time would be lost. It screams of incompetence. I’d like to know if you think a better run process could have allowed us to get to your preferred design earlier. And if so, who should be held accountable for allowing this to happen.
5. Values. I’m actually stunned that we have leadership in the community that would actually prioritize preserving the VIEWS of a historic building over doing what’s best for kids. I won’t dramatize, I get that the compromise isn’t huge– the layout is less optimal as described above, a delay of 6 months or so. But its a compromise on what’s best for our kids. Over a view of a building. Those are not my values. I did not think they were your values. I did not think they were Newton values. Building views over doing what’s BEST for our children. I’m numb.
I appreciate that you’re willing to meet with people in private, individually or in small groups. Some of your constituents prefer this public medium, so we can share quickly and broadly with the community. My questions are fair and reasonable. You post at length on other topics. I hope you respect the concerns of your constituents enough to post on these questions. There are many people waiting for the answers.
By all accounts, the new plan adds 6-9 months to the process. Emily is saying that Cabot would have been at Carr for 2 years with the approved plan. The new plan adds 6-9 months to the approved plan, which means we’re talking about the kids going to Carr going into a third year. How long into the third year? January 2020? Longer?
I had to leave the meeting after an hour, but during that time neither city officials nor Councilors provided reassurance that this was the final time they’d consider alternate plans. They’ve had the Potter property for months. They’ve had the “new plan” on the table for months. Why didn’t the City Councilors and the School Committee members who voted to abstain ask for a review of the plans when the property was acquired?
Thank you Emily!!!! I and many others appreciate your hard work and understanding of this complicated issue. Many posters here seem to propose concerns without any evidence, just fear.
Thank you Paul for your message about accountability. I think it is also worth noting that leading up to the vote the Ward 2 Councilors emphasized in no uncertain terms – publicly and privately – that they would not vote for a delay if it would compromise MSBA funding.
Yet, when it was made abundantly clear last night that MSBA funding *might* be compromised – no one could promise otherwise – those same Ward Councilors voted in favor of a 4 week delay. Choosing to plead ignorance about the one clear pledge they made.
@Paul:
1. Potter property was acquired in February. I wish it had been acquired a year ago, but it wasn’t. Without that property, putting the gym on the north side was not possible because it was too close to the Potter’s home, “within feet in the single digits” as Josh Morse put it. Some commenters at last night’s meeting said they didn’t believe him, there is not much I can do with that. I have had my own disagreements with the executive branch on various issues over the years but I do not for a New York second question anyone’s honesty.
2. “It creates a layout that no school would choose when starting from scratch” Not sure where that is coming from. As was stated man times last night, no one is advocating a design that would be worse for Cabot students, our school administrators believe it is possible to meet all the educational goals with the alternative site plan being discussed.
3. I’m communicating information as I have it. I understand I have not done so in this case to your satisfaction. I am doing my best; at least I produce a newsletter for you to complain about.
4. “A proactive organization would have been developing alternative plans in anticipation of the Potter purchase, so that no time would be lost.” Agreed that would have been better.
5. As I stated above, I simply disagree with your contention that there is some widespread awareness that the educational goals will be compromised in any way shape or form by putting the gym on the north side.
@Jane: I thought I saw you at the meeting so I am not sure why you are unclear as to what was said there. What was said at the meeting is that a delay due to changing the site plan would possible keep Cabot students in Carr for 2 years, but that there was a good chance that would have happened anyway, even with the current site plan.
I am struck by the fact that the CSBC, who unanimously voted favorably on the site plan a month ago, changed their minds enough to give this added review a chance.
Whatever the overall dynamics, that switch, to me, is significant.
And while nothing is guaranteed, I don’t think the city would take a chance at losing MSBA funding.
And we’re just two spots behind Bliss Corner, which may be as close to Bliss as Newton will ever get.
@Paul — continuing my point on accountability–
Further, by it’s own actions and statements last night, the CSBC gave anyone who was thinking about filing a lawsuit or appealing for further delay plenty of ammunition. I just wish one of these CSBC members who voted in favor of delay would do us the honor of resigning rather than pat themselves on the back for being so inclusive and deliberative.
Paul, good summary/comments.
Emily:
The school administrators think the educational plan wouldn’t be compromised? Says who? The school principal doesn’t agree with you (at least not yet). She strongly advocated for the current site plan.
Can you please, with specificity, tell us who at the school administration level feels like the educational plan is same or better at the new site plan?
And less folks think we are picking on Emily, I’d appreciate Susan answering all of Paul’s questions from above.
I’ll have a longer post on the rest of this later. I think the PTO is fully involved now, I’m hoping many of those folks will post information here as well. Others know more than me, I’ve been distracted during this process with family issues.
Emily – To my knowledge, the school administration did not communicate with the Cabot community about the options. Did they communicate that to you? If so, when?
@Fig–perhaps you missed the meeting last night where this was discussed, including the commitment to meeting the educational objectives.
@Jane–I don’t understand your question.
@fignewtonville: What part of the process would you describe as going well? The part where we argued for months over whether or not there should be a parking lot in Cabot Park? When the Conservation Commission told the Parks and Recreation Commission – please don’t take away parkland for cars. The part where we were told that the circulation pattern was fantastic that made a concrete island out of the two homes on Cabot st? the part that added a drop off in front of the school where students would be forced to cross Cabot and 2 lanes of drop-off traffic – almost another street, before they got to the front door? the part where they said – no problem we’ll just add another crossing guard or two? the part where they added a rotary as a drop off on parkview ave that everyone thought was crazy? Oh – it must be the part where they put a large gym in front of the historic structure.
I’ll tell you the part that definitely didn’t go well was when they purchased the Potter property and didn’t seriously look to see if there was a different design that didn’t put the gym in front of the building.
People have some mythical notion that this was a smooth process until now. This has been a difficult process and there are a whole lot of lessons learned to take away from it.
We have solved almost all the issues. There will be no parking lot in the park but we have alrady identified 100 parking spaces without taking away parkland. The circulation pattern has been fixed (we hope) with the bus drop off on Cabot st. and thanks to the Potters – we have a new road which we hope will make the traffic pattern work.
A school needs to serve the needs of everyone – the kids, teachers and the neighborhood. May i suggest for your reading pleasure you have a look at this website – the Whole building Design Guide . http://www.wbdg.org/design/elementary.php
Here is an exerpt:
“Aesthetics
The importance of the physical appearance of a public school should not be minimized. A school building that is attractive and responds to and is consistent with the design and context of the neighborhood, builds a sense of pride and ownership among students, teachers, and the community. The exterior should complement the neighborhood and reflect the community’s values. The interior should enhance the learning process.”
The design team worked really hard and well to get the interior part done – but kept putting off the neighborhood which has been concerned from the start about preserving the historic structure.
I’ve been down this road before when the then Principal Joe Gatuso wanted to put the modulars in the front yard of the school right on Cabot st. The neighborhood was extremely upset. A better place was found on the Northwest corner of the building – and the second batch of modulars were put in the same place. I remember the aha moment for Principal Gatuso when he said the neighborhood lives with the school 24/7 fall, winter, summer spring. We have to have a wonderful plan that works for the school and the neighborhood – we should go with it.
And here are my answers to Paul’s questions –
1. I didn’t vote for the plan.
2. We don’t know what the new site design is yet. we will find out in four weeks.
3. As I said before – I didn’t vote for it. I said the night we voted that we never stopped to reconsider the site based on the Potter Property acquisition. It was only then that I found out that during a working group meeting that I missed because i have a day job and can’t go to meetings called only 2 days in advance – that the subject did come up (without it being on an agenda given out in advance) – but was never brought forward to the Cabot School Building Committee. I’ve been upset with myself for not stopping the vote then and there to go back and force us to look at whether or not a new design was possible.
4.for my answer to number 4 please see everything I’ve written above.
5. I’m kind of stunned myself. I love the Cabot School. I have been and still today am entirely invested in that school. I gave my heart and soul to it for years as the Chair of this or that committee and as the PTO Co-president. I’m stunned that people aren’t willing to wait for 4 weeks to see if we are not making a mistake that we will live with for 100 years.
Susan – People aren’t upset about being asked to wait 4 weeks. Please don’t twist words, as they say. This is what people are upset about:
1. A design team was hired for the Cabot School renovation/add on and you then intervened two months ago and allowed a small group of architects, none of whom have ever designed a school before, to present a plan to the community. That should never have happened. This is how the process works: the city hires a design team; the public provides input; the design team makes modifications to the plan; this happens multiple times; there’s a vote to approve the design; the design is passed on to the City Council; the City Council votes on the project. You don’t invite a rogue architect to come in and upend the process. And a City Councilor should not be aligning herself with said architect at the expense of communication with the school community.
2. No one thinks this was a mythical process. This school sits on the smallest site in the city. Everyone knew it was going to be difficult, and it has been. But the parents and the school community followed the process as it was laid out. You did not.
3. Not only do we not know what the new design is, we don’t know what the cost or the delay will be. Call me jaded as a result of my past experiences with school building projects in this city, but I’ll bet any amount of money that the cost estimate for the new plan will come in roughly the same as the approved plan. I’ll also bet that the move back to the new school will also be described as being roughly the same with the new plan. That is until the design proves to be more costly and result in delays. Just like NNHS.
4. The rumor is that the City Councilors would not vote to approve a building that the Ward 2 Councilors opposed. By all accounts, most of the Councilors know very little about a $40,000,000 project that they were supposed to vet and vote on in the next month. This is no way to run a city.
5. The communication on this project has been unacceptable. The city knew how this vote was going to go well before yesterday afternoon, but informed the community at 3:00 yesterday afternoon.
6. School building do not last 100 years for two reasons. First, imagine someone saying in 1916 that a school was going to last 100 years-the idea simply isn’t rational. School buildings are heavily used by 400 children every day and, beyond 50 years old, are tired at best. Second, the changes in public education require regular updating of facilities. ADA and the 766 have been game changers in school architecture. Who knows what other laws will do the same in the future?
The Cabot community expects effective, ongoing, and consistent communication and expects the city to follow the process as it’s laid out.
Some school buildings do last 100 years, and longer. Harvard’s for example. We shouldn’t assume we need to replace buildings every few decades. It is not fiscally responsible, it is not environmentally responsible.
Emily and Susan- the thing that disturbs me is that we elected you to represent our community. The community wants the existing (already approved plan) to move forward demonstrated by the 500+ signatures obtained in 48 hours. Yes- there are a FEW dissenters, but that will be the case with any plan. If you do not personally agree with your community, you should have abstained from voting. Your yes vote – is against the wishes of the community you serve.
College buildings which are used by adults often last several hundred years, and significant funding goes into their restoration. That’s great. However, they are not servicing 400 five to ten year old children who are very hard on any structure or space. It was not fiscally or environmentally responsible to defer maintenance for decades but it happened, and here we have another effort to defer a renovation/add on.
Cabot school is close to 80 years – ok i should have said 80 years. Here with is my correction 80 years is a long to time to regret having not paused for 4 weeks to see if there is a better plan.
@Linda: The role of an elected official within a representative democracy — trustee vs delegate model — is one long debated and won’t be settled here. I will just point out that logically speaking, it is not possible to define representing the community as doing what specific people within the community want, because people disagree. You do not want the site plan reconsidered; many of your neighbors do. So I am doing what I always try to do at least, which is listen to all sides, take in as much data as I can, and use my best judgment. And by the way I have looked at that list of 500 – 1) they are not all from Newton, and 2) the petition they were asked to sign offered inaccurate information.
I would also like to point out that while it may be Susan and me on the blog, we are hardly alone in our views on this. The following individuals all agree with the 4 week delay to look at putting the gym on the north side: Mayor Warren, CFO Maureen Lemieux, Buildings Commissioner Josh Morse, Deputy Superintendent Sandy Guryan, School Committee Chair Matt Hills, School Committee member Steve Siegel, City Councilor and Public Facilities Chair Deb Crossley, myself, City Councilor Susan Albright, City Councilor Jake Auchincloss. Even a casual observer of Newton politics would grasp that this is not a group singing kumbaya on every issue. I would hope that the fact that we all agree on this one issue would cause at least some to consider that we actually think this is the best approach, that we think in the end it will produce the best outcome for the Cabot students and the wider community. Note of course that Mayor Warren is a Cabot parent himself. Do we really think he would advocate for a position that would jeopardize the school his own children attend?
Lastly, I encourage folks to read two letters recently posted to the City website – one from the Mayor about his conversation with the MSBA, and the other offering the wording of the vote taken last night by the Cabot School Building Committee.
Susan-When my oldest son entered Kindergarten, Cabot needed a comprehensive renovation. He’s 34 years old.
In 1986, it was a 50 year old inadequate, disgusting building, well beyond tired.
@Emily
““A proactive organization would have been developing alternative plans in anticipation of the Potter purchase, so that no time would be lost.” Agreed that would have been better.”
I appreciate that you are admitting to some mistakes in the process.
Who specifically in the city administration was responsible for thinking about these contingencies and failed to do so? Actual names please.
We need accountability. Acknowledgement of mistakes is a start, but that isn’t accountability.
@Paul, I think I’ve been as responsive as I can, and I am getting the impression it will never be enough for you. So I’m going to feed my kids dinner, take my oldest to soccer, and say goodnight to Village 14 for the evening!
Emily,
You selectively answered my questions, and I responded with a follow-up repeating a key question from earlier. You can pretend I’m being unreasonable, I’m not– I KNOW many Cabot parents have the same questions.
The reality is that you’ve spent far more time lately defending your job rather than doing it. Your constituents are genuinely hurt that faced with a tough position- compromise on building views or our children, that you’ve chosen the latter. You can ignore Prinicipal Dibella’s clear rationale why the north side gym placement is less optimal for the children, pretend both designs are equal, and regurgitate the same talking points.
You have been evasive, not transparent, and misleading at times. I’ve been a fan of yours for years, but your behavior– more than your vote — has me hugely disappointed in you. I miss the Emily Norton that was about Great Schools and common sense reform like FDK. I don’t know where that Emily Norton has gone.
The Cabot site may be complex and difficult to navigate, but is not a constricted urban lot, it is a site connected to a beautiful park. (We do live in the Garden City after all). Currently, plan B does not present us with an “optimized” plan for a 21st century school – (for the next 100 years).
The gymnasium nestled behind and tucked into the addition on a small residential street (Bridges Ave.) is hardly optimal for the students or neighbors. This satisfies the constituents who want to preserve a panoramic unobstructed view of the historic façade. This approach to preservation/addition is unrealistic given all the constraints of this particular project. Some of the east facade will have to be obstructed, but it will be preserved beautifully. This is compromise.
The school should engage the park, that is what Architecture is supposed to do. It’s not only a façade or a wall to admire from across the park.
So Emily, I assume that I can email or call each of those individuals and they will agree with you. I surely plan to email Steve Siegel and Deb Crossley about their intentions. In a conversation with Josh Morse on Monday, he in no way indicated that he indicated that a pause was a good idea.
These are the three guiding principles for the Mayor:
Ensuring the safety of our children,
Providing the breadth of programming for which Newton is known, and
Completing our school capital projects on time and on budget.
Please focus on the third principle “Complete our capital projects on time and under budget”. That’s the deal. Can it be done on time and under budget. If it can’t, it’s a nonstarter.
What Paul said. Could not agree with him more on all points. Emily and Susan continue to provide defensive and selective answers to any posed questions.
I am flabbergasted at how the Ward 2 Councilors, supposedly seasoned politicians, could not be more tone-deaf. They don’t seem to have any insight into the fact that they are not actually listening to nor addressing the Cabot community’s concerns in detail.
1. The last few weeks between the two committee meetings could not have been handled more poorly. The explanation of the purpose of yesterday’s vote, what the reconsideration of the design would entail and who would be doing it, the implication of a new design on schedule, why two random architects were given the ability to interject themselves into the public process, the implications of a missing an MSBA deadline on funding – none of these things were even attempted to be explained to the majority of Cabot stakeholders until yesterday. A few of these items were finally circulated in a memo that was emailed out literally hours before the meeting. That is not the definition of transparency or good communication regarding a HUGE change in the project with profound potential implications on all aspects of the project. Given that the Ward 2 Councilors instigated the change, it was on them to be the BEST communicators about the rationale for this change. Instead they came across as unwilling to provide any degree of detail to the community. Lesson 101 on how NOT to handle a public project in which the community has a vested interest.
2. A trustee is supposed to consider all sides of an issue. Here, the councilors come across like they are considering only the side of the FEW people who want the gym removed from their side of the park. Point proven: look at how Emily discusses the petition. She fails to recognize that the VAST MAJORITY of the 556+ and counting signees were Cabot families and Newton residents supporting moving forward with the current design as the main point of the petition. Instead, she highlights above the perhaps 20 or so non-Newton residents many of whom are CABOT AND CASP FACULTY. Apparently they don’t deserve a say in whether they believe that the current design would best meet the needs of their students. Before criticizing the non-Newton signees, why wouldn’t she do her homework?
3. It is NOT at all clear that the educational programming will be optimally preserved in a new design, and the Lou and the faculty will have an extremely compressed timeframe to make sure that they don’t miss any major problem with the new design. At the meeting yesterday, Arthur Cohen, a respected architect and chair of the design review committee, and a non-voting member, pointed out that even Zervas, a brand new school, chose to site the gym as a separate adjoining building rather than integrated near the classrooms. He emphasized that it is not easy to put a gym near a classroom and preserve optimal classroom proximity and educational programming. Unfortunately for us he is a non-voting member of the committee. Lou DiBella, Cabot principal, is opposed to revisiting the design. And it is an unbelievable burdensome expectation on her that she is going to compress into what – a few days? A week? – a sufficiently careful examination of the design. Both the public, and the teachers, should be given the proposed design WELL AHEAD of the next meeting – not exposed to the design for the first time at the meeting. Otherwise, there is no way that the new proposed design can be claimed to have had the same degree of faculty and public vetting that the current design benefited from.
4. Since Emily considers herself and Susan trustees and not delegates, it seems very likely that she and Susan will continue to work to obstruct any version of the current plan going forward. Thus, even if the CSBC vote on June 2 were to miraculously support the current plan – which seems unlikely give the nature of the vote yesterday – I am predicting they will then work to ensure that City Council does not approve the current plan, or that the Historical Commission fails to approve the plan. Why should they respect a vote by the CSBC and DRC in favor of the current plan on June 2? They didn’t respect it before, and they’re TRUSTEES so they know better than the 500+ Newton residents who have expressed an opposing point of view.
5. The supposed “four week only” delay is an invention designed only to curry public favor and is greatly misleading. There is no way that Cabot students will leave Carr within 2 years with a new design and there is no way that costs will not rise – this was expressed by CSBC members yesterday. Four weeks is the timeframe set to decide whether to essentially go back to the drawing board. Joshua, the building commissioner, made this very clear yesterday. He clearly stated that a vote in favor of a new design on June 2, would mean that the architects would spend the summer and probably part or all of the fall redesigning the entire building. And this would mean more public meetings with likely new perceived problems with the design. And maybe some new random architect would come along, with an EVEN BETTER DESIGN!!! And since we didn’t have that information previously, it would be wrong to not at least delay things by four more weeks to consider that new design!!!!
So let’s unpack a few things here:
1) First, an admission. I like the historic building. I’m glad they kept it. I know it makes it more difficult in a bunch of different ways including the site plan, but I think the guts of the building are solid, and while it might not be the shining building that Angier turned out to be, it still has the potential to be amazing.
2) Second, an acknowledgement. The historic building, no matter how much I love it, was built to educate around 200 students. It doesn’t fit, in any way, shape or form, the number of kids, the need of those kids, or the activities of a school. The school has been surrounded by a 1950’s addition that needed to be torn down 40 years ago, and modelars that clearly were a stopgap solution. So new structures are needed. Combining new structures with historic building is always a challenge. Siting, transitions between new and old, height and size of the new, all can challenge the historic fabric. So the decision to keep the historic building was tied in with necessary compromise, unless you wanted to shrink the number of kids in half.
3) Third, the needed compromises listed above, priorities are key. Which comes first, the best school for the children, or the best school for the site and the historic fabric. In this case, I don’t think you get both. You can try and minimize the compromise to one or the other, but you can’t maximize both. You either keep the view of the fascade along the park, and squeeze the gym in the back of the school. That maximizes the historic features and apparently appeases a portion of the abutters (although I’m sure other abutters will not want the gym moved). But from the view of the PTO and the principal, and in my view having walked the site today and studied the site plans shown to date, it won’t fit as well within the education framework. There are advantages to having a disconnected gym. Let’s also acknowledge that if the gym remains on the SE section, there is a loss to the historic site as a whole, it looks less appealing from Cabot Street, and that certain abutters will be upset. The educational program might be maximized, but the long term site view will not. I think the details on how the gym is designed will matter for the SE site, there are ways to soften that structure and help in delineated from the historic building, but there is no way to keep it from blocking the view.
4) I’m sure Susan and Emily believe in what they are doing here. This is an unpleasant and difficult situation. I don’t understand their view as of yet, and I don’t agree with what they’ve done. But it is possible that they are pushing a set of priorities different from mine, different from the PTO, different from the principal, different from the majority of Cabot parents (the extremely large majority). I can respect that, if even I view it as a mistake. And I give them credit for posting here, even if I agree with Paul that those posts are incomplete.
So let’s address some of the issues raised above by our village councilors:
1) Emily: I was at a portion of the meeting last night. You and I must have heard different things. The committee certainly said they would try and meet the educational objectives, but there was little discussion as to how, despite many parents pointing out that the current plan improves the education objectives. The PTO and the principal were clear regarding what plan best met the educational objectives. You are asking us to trade certainty regarding those objectives with uncertainty.
2) Susan: You’re right. I was being too polite. This process has been difficult. The school and the parents have been ignored or marginilized multiple times. I was at the Parks/Rec meeting. I recall you speaking at the meeting, but just to decry how the process got to that point, with neighbor/abutter vs. parents and teachers. You didn’t take a real stand, you just spoke against the process and the negativity. Again, the school principal/teachers/parents were ignored. I remember being disappointed in both you and Emily regarding the decision not to build the parking lot, that the community had caved to pressure from folks outside Newtonville to keep Cabot Park undeveloped (even 2.5% of it, even thought the city was giving the Park thousands of dollars of improvements in exchange for the Parkland). But I understood the desire to stand firm on certain principles, in this case environmental ones, and to minimize the parkland taken from parking. We chose to maximize the park over the teachers and the school. I didn’t agree, but the community was split and I respected the decision. Emily, I find it ironic that after relying on so many outside voices in that particular dispute over the parking lot, you now dismiss the petition due to a few outside names of Cabot/CASP teachers.
3) Susan: I appreciate the lecture on aesthetics and the quote you mentioned. I agree with it. I really do. But we also don’t live in a vacuum where aesthetics are the primary factor. The school is historic and potentially beautiful. But it’s primary purpose is a school.
4) Susan and Emily: You both quote the various other supporters. But from multiple conversations, I’m told that the driving force to postpone lies with the two of you. Jake has told folks that he will vote for whatever the committee decides to do. There has been a great deal of talk that the reason this delay was necessary was that it wasn’t going to pass the city council. And the main reason given as to why? Because the Ward 2 councilors weren’t going to vote for it or recommend it. So when you tell folks others were in favor of the delay, and those others tell parents they had no choice because it wouldn’t have passed the city council, and the reason given as to why is your lack of support…well…even my Cabot school kid can figure out circular reasoning. Again, you have the courage of your convictions. I just wish you had owned up to them directly, communicated them directly, and tried to convince us, versus having open meetings that weren’t open meetings, bringing in new architects, etc.
5) Susan and Emily: You express disappoint and surprise that folks can’t understand a four week delay. I’ve been done this road before. It is only a 4 week delay IF they stay with the current site plan. As others have pointed out, if they change site plans, we are talking a 6 month delay at a minimum. Does anyone really think the site change won’t be changed at this point? We already know you both want the gym to be moved.
6) Susan: I appreciate your long history with the school. The story about the modulars shows me how much you care about the historic siting and the neighborhood. Because of that history, I’m surprised you are so willing to ignore so many of the parents, teachers and the principal so many times in this process. You say you are stunned. So are we. Over the next 4 weeks, I encourage both you and Emily to make yourself personally available for a group meeting with Cabot parents. Perhaps we can educate each other regarding the different values being emphasized throughout this project.
I leave everyone with a question and a prediction and a request:
1) The Question: Many folks have told me this delay is necessary because the Newton Historic Commission or the Massachusetts Historic Commission (through a state funding review) will refuse to approve the project otherwise. I see no proof of the latter, limited understanding of the former entity. Can someone explain to be their involvement and role going forward in the project.
2) A prediction: The simple 4 week delay will prove to be based on incomplete information. This new plan will show promise, the committee will vote to vet and pursue it, and 4 weeks with quickly turn to six months. The kids will all move to Cabot and stay there for at least until September 2019. The price tag will increase. And the educational program will be slightly compromised by the building., but the kids will still love the new digs. A new crop of parents and a new principal will come into the new building and will love it, even if they wonder who was the genius that decided it was a good idea to cram all of the site until the north side of the sit….
3) A final request. Neither of you are impartial at this point. Don’t hide behind your fellow voting members, the city council, other commissions, the weather, your day jobs, etc. Be forthright. When the new site plan comes out, defend your position vigorously and in person. Convince us. Stop with the history lessons, the lectures on aesthetics, the questioning the heartfelt and concerned 500 member poll. I don’t have to agree with you. But I’m someone who loves the historic building, and your discussion and your posts above seem either defensive, angry that so many folks are questioning your judgments, or just plain confusing. If you can’t convince me you’ve got this well thought out, you are never going to convince other parents. I think everyone at Cabot (from the principal to the PTO to the ordinary parents like myself) recognizes how much power you wield in this process. Acknowledge that. We talk to the your fellow councilors and committee members. They all point fingers firmly in your direction.
I think many of us also recognize that you want what you consider to be best for the school, the neighborhood and the city. Not necessarily in that order however, and therein lies the rub.
We all have 4 weeks to reconsider our respective positions here.
@Jane: Josh Morse is a voting member of the Cabot School Building Committee. He voted in favor of a 4 week delay. Not sure how much clearer his position could be.
I received a different message from Mr Morse on Monday. He most certainly could have been clearer to me if he planned to vote Yes.
A reminder that I’m hosting office hours today at Bread & Chocolate in Newton Highlands from 10am to noon. Happy to discuss the City Council’s role in the Cabot approval process with citizens who want to meet me there. I’m also going to host an outdoor office hours at Cabot during pick-up, which I will advertise beforehand.
One quick point before I run out the door to save some seats at Bread & Chocolate:
The City Council should support whichever decision the CSBC makes in 4 weeks. I am only one of 24, but councilors have influence on ward matters with their colleagues and I’m putting my political capital into an assurance that this 4-week pause will not dilate into second-guessing due to the specter of the city council. I believe it’s important to make that assurance public insofar as it helps the CSBC deliberate on the merits instead of on the politics of the design.
@emily – you voted to approve the original plan, how much clearer could your position be?
I can’t speak for all 530+ signers, but from my perspective, many if not all of the Yes votes on Thursday (with the exception of perhaps Susan and Emily) were forced by the situation. They fear lawsuits, they fear interventions by other review bodies (i.e. Newton Historic) — all entirely manufactured by the circular reasoning “fig” mentioned above. NOTHING about the Potter Property is new. Principal DiBella does NOT support a delay. These are just two of many examples.
How can our elected representatives ridicule a petition signed by hundreds of their constituents? It’s illegitimate because a few teachers and administrators who live out of district dared to care enough about this issue to sign it? I don’t get it.
Jake
Would you have voted for the 4 week delay?
We deserve to know where our representatives stand on important issues.