creds: marciajohnson.org
A new alternate design to relocate the gymnasium and preserve the view of the façade from the street was presented at a working group meeting earlier this week. A vote will be taken at a CSBC and DRC meeting next Thursday at 6pm in the Cabot gym. Details are available at the Cabot PTO page and the project web site. The new plan radically changes the “massing” of the building relative to abutters as well as the internal layout and seems to orient the building away from the park and towards automobile traffic. A group called Safe New Cabot has a long list of concerns about the alternate plan. What do you think?
Humpty Dumpty looks like something out of a horror movie.
If orienting the school layout towards auto traffic was necessary because of the new orientation and this plan is considered inferior by the architect, that’s one thing, but if it was done as a deliberate feature for the community, the firm the city has hired is completely tone deaf. This looks like the drive-thru school design originally proposed at Zervas. They could just replace Humpty Dumpty with your favorite fast food mascot. Ronald McDonald? Or perhaps Colonel Sanders to pay homage to the old KFC in Newtonville?
The Cabot School Building Committee voted to ask the architect to do this rendering.
In an effort to head-off another misinformation campaign about the Cabot parents not understanding the nuances of building design, please see below for a list of many of the real, concrete advantages of the plan approved by the CSBC on April 5 versus the alternative presented on May 23. Anyone interested in comparing the visuals of both plans side by side are encouraged to do so, and representatives of the Safe New Cabot group would be happy to meet at anytime. Apologies for the length of this post in advance.
The CSBC vote on June 2 is a choice between an Approved Plan that was developed based on the project’s stated priorities, and an alternative that was designed to expose the Southeast corner of the existing building. On each of the points below, the Approved Plan either succeeds or offers stronger support for the project’s most important goals where the alternative plan fails:
– maximizing the educational program;
– improving student and pedestrian safety;
– minimizing impact on the neighborhood;
– and strengthening the direct connection between Cabot School and Cabot Park.
The Approved Plan’s educational programming is superior to the alternative plan:
– Classroom clusters and communal spaces are optimized for teacher and student collaboration and differentiation of learning, where the alternative plan isolates some of the classrooms from their grade-level counterparts, limits visual access to Project Areas, and offers fewer Project Areas overall.
– REACH classrooms are centrally located, fostering the sense of inclusion valued by the Newton Public Schools.
– Gym (and associated noise) is isolated from classrooms, similar to the layout in Angier and Zervas.
– Outdoor Classroom space adjacent to Art and Staff Lunch Room is provided.
– Quiet Room placement and adjacencies are more appropriate.
– Extended Day program space properly sized and centralized.
– Elevator located adjacent to Service Area.
– Library not located near any mechanical systems.
The Approved Plan offers a greater positive impact on the Cabot School/Cabot Park connection and the neighborhood:
– Plaza and outdoor play space provides uninterrupted access to open green space of Cabot Park and away from Cabot Street (this access is significantly compromised in the alternative plan).
– Burden of new massing distributed fairly in all directions, with gym placed furthest from all residents. Second and third story massing setback considerably further on Bridges.
– Existing structure is the “jewel” at the heart of the design, retaining significant views of the historic facades.
The Approved Plan prioritizes safe and efficient access to and from school for pedestrians and all vehicle traffic:
– Both Blue Zones are visible and accessible from the Plaza.
– Flow of car drop off and pick up is optimized with a centralized entrance.
– Service entrance is appropriately set back from Bridges and “Potter Way” Blue Zone.
– Students have a safe and consolidated place to congregate at dismissal.
– Traffic and parking of vehicles during non-school hours equally distributed to neighboring streets.
For all of the reasons stated above and countless others, the Approved Plan is the right school to build for future Cabot students and for our community. We strongly urge the Cabot School Building Committee to move the plan they approved on April 5 forward to the City Council for site plan approval.
I am on Newton’s Safe Routes to School Task Force and am very troubled by the safety implications of the B4 (new) design for students arriving to school both by foot and in cars. All the descriptions and numbers I reference below come from publicly posted versions of the approved plan and alternative plan B4.
In the design approved on April 5, the addition on the north side of the building ends a minimum of 59 feet away from the Cabot Park line (which is several feet into the park grass). This means that from the plaza and main entrance area, sightlines are clear to both blue zones. At dismissal time, students can congregate in the plaza/playground area and be able to see cars as they pull into either blue zone.
In the B4 alternative presented at the working group meeting this Monday, the new building mass to the north blocks this connection between the plaza and the main blue zone to the north of the school. The addition proposed in B4 ends only 3 feet away from the park property line in places – i.e., it extends into the grass on the park side of Parkview (as it stands now). The building runs the entire length of the blue zone and indeed extends past it.
This may not sound like a big deal, but it has huge implications for safety across the board. For students getting picked up at dismissal time (in the B4 scenario), they cannot see who is waiting in the blue zone unless they are congregating on the sidewalk to the north side of the building. This will create a chaotic and potentially unsafe situation (similar to now, except with even less space).
Massing the building to the north (B4 scenario) will also significantly impede the use of the park for recreation. As it was presented on Monday, the building will extend to just 25′ from the fenced-in Little League field. This would have the effect of caging the students in the plaza area. The view to the rest of the park from the plaza area will be blocked by the building, making usage of the park difficult to monitor for teachers.
I gather from speaking with teachers that there are real drawbacks in the overall classroom layout and integration of special education classrooms in the B4 scenario, but I am more familiar with speaking to the pedestrian and traffic safety challenges.
I worry that we are about to throw away our opportunity to truly link the school with the park and improve the safety of students arriving by all modes of transportation. The design B4, while technically connecting the school to the park, in reality faces the school towards Cabot St., with a fenced Little League field in between.
We should make sure we choose the option that works best as a school, not just the option that has the most pleasing view of the historic building from the south.
I really hope people look at the layouts of the initial approved design and the new alternative.
There is a signficant difference in the layout of the two proposals. The initial approved design has the classrooms well situated in a way that makes sense, co-located appropriately with common spaces placed next to the classrooms. The new design clearly is forced to place the classrooms around other constraints- the library is now on the third floor with some classrooms, the cafeteria also protrudes into the second floor and the classrooms are placed around that too.
The layout of the initial design optimized for educational space, at the expense of obscuring Cabot in some views. The new design optimizes views of the old Cabot, at the expense of a less optimal layout of educational space. It’s extremely clear.
Here’s the problem I have with those advocating to do more to preserve the building: they are not interested in compromise. The reality is that the BEST educational layout would have been achieved with a fully new building, without any structural constraints limiting layout. Keeping the building WAS already a compromise. A compromise of creating the best educational environment for our kids– for a building. But that doesn’t seem to be enough for some folks. They want even further compromise on the educational environment to optimize the VIEWS of the building. There is no proposed concession by those interested in preserving the building. ALL of the concessions are being made by the educational environment with this new proposal.
The new proposed layout is worse. Look for yourselves. It’s time to move forward with the approved plan. It’s best for our children.
Well said Ali.
It’s unclear to me whether a second entrance is proposed in the new design to service the blue zone (to Joanne and Ali’s concerns above) The red arrows and the hallway ending at Potter Way suggest that this is the case, but it would be great if anyone present at the Monday meeting could clarify. This could be the worst combination: it caters to the automobile, encouraging driving, and eliminating the shared, peaceful open space facing the park that was part of the Approved plan. In other school building projects, a shared entry was considered very important both in terms of security and community. The April “approved plan” for Cabot seemed to get this just right; the new plan reverses it?
Agreed with what folks state above. I’d appreciate it if Emily or Susan would weigh in above with the advantages to the new plan. The drawbacks are clear to me from the above, but considering the fact that our ward city councilors are the ones that are blocking the approved design, I would like to hear them make a case for this new design publicly. First I think that is fair, and second I would welcome the chance to be persuaded. Alternatively, I’d welcome discussion with folks who prefer this new design who aren’t on the committee, especially if they are advantages they want to discuss.
I won’t be able to make the June meeting due to travel, but I’d like to encourage community discussion prior to the meeting, and I’d especially like to encourage members of the building committee to speak publicly regarding their thoughts prior to the meeting, if possible.
Apologies if I’m wearing out my welcome here. I’d like to add that many of us are commmunicating to the committee with a thoughtful, factual list of concerns with the alternative plan. In response we’re told to “have a look” at the new plan, which is incredibly obnoxious and inappropriate. Unlike elected officials whose job it is to build schools, we are spending an enormous amount of our own time working on this project that we’d certainly rather be spending with our young families. We HAVE studied the new plan, and concluded – along with specific experts (SPED, safety, building design) who will be weighing in – that the new plan comes nowhere close to meeting the project’s objectives.
Further, some of the specific counterpoints put forward are nonsensical. Adam, you are correct. An entrance onto the blue zone between a three story building and a parking lot is a horrendously bad idea (and yet it’s being “sold” as a benefit??).
Just because a compact design would be more energy efficient doesn’t mean that reason alone trumps everything else. Remember, the designers had that same option with Angier and Zervas when they started from scratch and yet they still chose to separate the gym from the rest of the structure.
I do encourage everyone to view the plans side by side. I feel extremely confident that doing so will make it clear how much better (though not perfect by any means!) the approved plan is than the alternative.
Joanna:
No one can wear out their welcome here. I’m proof of that. Post away. Post on many topics. Make fun of Greg.
As for the pros and cons, I await the response of those on the committee who can publicly support their position.
In response to Adam: at the Monday meeting, they did say that an additional entrance could be added along the blue zone. This would be in addition to the “main” entrance from the plaza. So we are presented with the following options vis a vis blue zone operations in B4, neither which is acceptable:
Option 1: If no entrance is added along blue zone, students enter a blue zone with no sightlines to the main entrance of the school. The building blocks the view and path to the main entrance form the blue zone. No place for students to congregate at dismissal time and see cars as they enter.
Option 2: A new entrance is added to service the blue zone (because plaza access is now blocked by the building). This runs counter to the guiding principles in Newton school projects, which emphasize a shared entry point (which improves security and helps build community). Blue zones by the entrance encourage driving, and the placement of the door with respect to the blue zone will encourage parents to stop in the middle of the blue zone to drop off, creating traffic backups.
It should be noted that both Zervas and Angier were both designed with a gathering area in front of a shared entry point, with blue zones located some distance away (in view of the entry). The approved plan for Cabot echoed these successful designs. Plan B4 does not.
The traffic flow and blue zone design was far superior in the approved plan. I can’t believe some parties are suggesting that we deliberately take actions to decrease safety and security for students as they enter the school. Why are the safety measures taken for Zervas and Angier not necessary for Cabot’s kids?
Ali, I don’t know that the sight lines are really a problem, as long as kids being driven can get to the blue zone safely and the traffic flow is not chaotic. At arrival, a good line of sight often means that parents dropping off will sit in their car and watch their child enter the school, creating congestion. We should be encouraging independence, the kind of skills kids need to walk from a bit further away, or from home! That said, having the building protrude between the main entrance and the blue zone doesn’t seem like a selling point either. Has anyone looked at the shadows cast by the new large structure on this new north entrance? It sounds like a cold, dark place.
Zervas was NOT originally designed with an open welcoming gathering area. The designer (same firm?) did not place any emphasis on that then, nor do they now. Zervas originally had a blue zone loop coming right up to the door. The design changed because of community feedback from Safe Routes and others, and I think Zervas will be much better for it. I only wish the city would take these lessons forward and give them to the architect as requirements, so we don’t have to have this discussion each time.
It is the same firm for both projects (Zervas and Cabot). It’s disheartening to have to keep fighting the same fights each time (blue zone location, plazas, gym placement, the list goes on…) How many times do we have to fight that same blue zone cul-de-sac?
I see what you are saying regarding sightlines, and agree that we shouldn’t necessarily facilitate parents waiting in the car to watch their children enter. However, I think having good access between the blue zone and plaza area here is critical for dismissal; otherwise, where are children going to wait? Are they expected to huddle in the shadow of the north side of the building along a thin strip of sidewalk?
At previous meetings the architect was able to provide shadow information along with their 3D renderings. Hopefully we will see some of that at the June 2 meeting. It’s critical to start raising these questions now, however, because the final vote will happen on June 2 as well.
Ali and Adam, the same firm is designing Cabot as designed Angier. The architects for Zervas are a different design firm.
Margaret, thanks for the correction. I was assuming that because the Zervas plans were available from the same project manager site that the architect was the same as well. Clearly not the right assumption.
I don’t understand the role of the project manager. Do they manage requirements? If so, that’s still a common thread.
Josslin-Lessor (spelling?) was the name of the Construction Team with which we worked at the Waban Area Council to facilitate communication between them and the Angier Community. They are the same people who are meeting with the Waban Area Council monthly to facilitate communication between their team and the Zervas community. However, their name has changed (perhaps because of a merger?) from Josslin-Lessor to NV5. Whether they used the same architects for both schools I don’t know.
NV5 is the owner’s project manager for all our school projects. They ensure projects stay on time and on budget. They are particularly important in the projects done with the MSBA (Angier, Cabot) as they ensure we are meeting MSBA requirements. They are at all the community meetings because they are coordinating the many elements and vendors involved in these large construction projects.
DiNisco Design Partnership are the architects for Cabot and Angier. The architects for Zervas are Perkins Eastman (formerly Design Partnership of Cambridge).
Thanks, Margaret, for clearing that up.
Margaret–
I think many of us would appreciate you speak to the substance of the concerns here. There are many that think that the education layout and safety of our children would be compromised for the sake of building views from the South.
Where are you on these issues? Which plan do you support and why?
Perhaps the city councilors and school committee local reps can hold a meeting PRIOR to this vote to discuss with concerned Newtonville residents?
The new plan was supposed to be far superior to the approved plan and it’s clearly not, and in many ways recreates the same problems in the existing building. Other than the elected officials in the city, who likes this plan and why? I hear no support for it other than from school committee members and Councilors.
This one is a complete conundrum:
You don’t place kids on a sidewalk between a building and a roadway full of cars at drop-off and pick-up time if you don’t have to.
You don’t put a library in a location where it will be a destination rather than an integral part of the educational program if you don’t have to.
You don’t place the rooms for children in special programs away from the regular classrooms if you don’t have to.
You don’t place a gym anywhere near any classroom if you don’t have to.
And what’s with the cafeteria that bumps up into the second floor?
This is not just a Newtonville issue. Residents throughout the city voted for a debt exclusion override to pay for this $40M building, with the full expectation that the best educational facility possible would be built on this cramped site. Residents who are paying for this building deserve to have clear, forthright explanation from the entire School Committee and all the Councilors about what’s going on and why they’d choose an inferior design – or if they think this is a superior design, then why?
Special programs are broken out how far Jane?
Also, does the school committees support this because they believe this is the best version, or because our city councilors are telling them the city council won’t approve the original version?
Here is my frustration:
There seems to be an attempt to go with the new plan because of undefined “issues” with approvals with the previously approved plan. It won’t pass the Newton Historic Commission. It won’t pass Massachusetts Historic Commission, it won’t pass City Council. But that’s not those bodies actually having the guts to state that outright. That’s a whisper campaign. That’s a bad way to run a city. That’s cowardly. We can do better.
So I state again, what are the merits of this new proposal. If there are proponents of this approach, let’s hear from them. If all we have is the fascade is better featured and the whisper campaign, let’s state that on the record as well.
I’m also concerned about the general lack of activity from V14 on this issue.
People like Greg and Gail post on a whole host of issues– why are they quiet on this?
Ted has frequently written mid-stream of various processes to make his opinion known. Where is he on this issue?
The general lack of posts on this topic really makes me think people simply don’t care. We seem to be at risk of choosing a less safe, less optimal design for a school over completely ridiculous reasons.
Doesn’t the rest of V14 care?
It’s going into the Memorial Day weekend. I disagree that people don’t care – they are busy, going away, lots of graduation parties, college commencements, etc. Let’s give them until Wednesday of next week to chime in. V14 is only one vehicle. I’m more disappointed that there haven’t been community events where government officials, School Committee members, and the DiNisco company can present options and answer questions. I think the gym will be packed next Thursday night, June 2nd.
Jane, have any school committee members come out in favor of the design just proposed, or councilors for that matter, or did they simply vote to do the due diligence and take one last look at the options? There’s a big difference. I’m hoping this was just an exercise to avoid appeals in the future.
Fig-“Also, does the school committee support this because they believe this is the best version, or because our city councilors are telling them the city council won’t approve the original version?” Before we saw Plan B, several Councilors told me that under no circumstances would the City Council vote for a plan that the Ward 2 Councilors opposed. That’s not how to make a $40M decision that’s supposed to last 100 years – a project paid for by every taxpayer in the city.
Fig: “That’s a whisper campaign.” Agreed. “That’s a bad way to run a city.” Agreed. “We can do better.” Agreed.
Adam-No SC members have stated publicly that they support Plan B. I have not heard of any Councilors express an opinion about Plan B.
Hear, hear @Jane Frantz @Ali Dunn @Joanna Josephson and all others calling for transparency and accountability. The public forum/Q&A/vote are being compressed into one meeting, and it’s extraordinary that we should go into the June 2 vote without having more information on where committee members stand.
We expect our city officials to be careful custodians of the public trust, and if there’s a radical change in the site plan for Cabot School, in the face of so many troubling features and inexplicable sacrifices to the educational program, the public trust will be sacrificed too.
First and foremost, Newton is building a SCHOOL. Plan B4 has clearly been designed to meet a specific outcome: opening up the view of the old facade from a particular vantage point on Eastside Parkway near Cabot Street. The original, approved plan was designed from the starting point of optimizing the educational program, then working backwards to accommodate site specs, community input, etc., etc. This is the essential outcome and the plan our elected officials should support.
I have been studying the new (B4) layout and educational plan comparing it to the previous unanimously approved proposal and I find it lacking in several ways, including the ones listed by Safe New Cabot. Losing the plaza and main entrance. The blue zone. Safety issues. Can’t find the mechanicals. The ELL room is small and far away from everything. The cafeteria is two stories tall but the area over the stage is not.
In the first proposal, the first floor configuration with the gym and library are not only completely separated but easily accessible for community use, the size and location of the ELL, Music, Art, Sp Ed, Extended Day rooms are well done.
The mechanicals do seem to take up a lot of room on the first floor.
I am concerned about this process. Along with what’s already been mentioned, I don’t understand why the first presentation of the new renderings showing the placement of the building, the loss of the plaza, the blue zone/building location resulting in kids waiting on the sidewalk, etc. will be voted on that same night. I also read that the historic commission would approve the first proposal. From everything I have found, this proposal was basically put forward by a few area residents who want to have a better view of the old building, mainly from the park, and have gained the support of at least two of the Ward 2 Councilors leading to the city counsel saying they would not support any proposal that wasn’t supported by the Ward 2 councilors. Terrible way to make decisions.
I don’t see any valid reason not to stay with the first proposal.
Here is the link to the accepted proposal. http://cabotpto.org/current-approved-school-design/
Paul:
Regarding the posting, all politics are local. Ted isn’t our city councilor. Greg and Gail don’t live in Newtonville. I wouldn’t expect this to be their issue as much as it is yours and mine.
And I’ve been pretty vocal about it.
Also, for those who say that this new plan is a feint, an appeasement of those who might object to the original plan, I don’t think that makes any sense. New plans are expensive. Delays are expensive. Susan and Emily spent a lot of political capital on this. They aren’t out in the community explaining it. Jake is hiding behind the committee. IF this is a feint, it is a waste of time and money, and if we are so disfunctional as to require that we actually need portions of our community govt to fool other portions of our community govt to get things done, well…that’s the silliest thing I’ve heard in a while.
And for those who say that the politicans don’t have to post here you are 100% correct. But there is ONE meeting to decide this. Once the summer hits we’ll have a 3 month delay (that will be the rationale for rushing things). So we make a choice between an imperfect plan that maximizes the educational outcomes and an imperfect plan that maximizes the view of the historic fascade.
What is interesting is that we are actually the community that bit the bullet and actually rehabbed a historic school building. We preserved the structure. But it feels like we aren’t keeping in mind the historic purpose, which is to be a school first. If this was being sold to a developer or repurposed I’d fight tooth and nail to keep the fascade view. But education and historic preservation are two distinct community benefits. Trust me when I tell you you can’t always have them both.So many communities just tear this buildings down because they don’t want to have to fight about issues exactly like these. Paul is right, the compromise already happened. We didn’t build new. Maximize the educational aspects first and foremost at this point. And no one has yet chimed in as to why the new plan would do that.
It is possible to change a decision in a single meeting, and create a new plan, maybe, in a summer. But building consensus takes time. It seems to me that the proponents of the alternate proposal have ignored the politically and socially essential element of consensus building in their attempt to change the outcome of a process that had already invested time in buy-in.
To see a number of elected officials overlook the time and effort needed to rebuild a broken consensus is surprisingly to me. Without good and fair and well-defined processes that work towards finality, politicians and citizens have nothing to build trust or progress upon. Every school redesign process will have this precedent hanging over it. Who would invest all that time knowing a hard “final” decision could be turned on its head so easily?
Everyone deserves their right to be heard. And not every good idea emerges before decisions are made. But processes and meeting and discussions and votes exist for a reason, and overturning them comes at a cost.
While I agree that decisions can be changed at a single meeting, I don’t think the new decision should just, relatively automatically take precedence over the first hard one decision. That seems to be what is happening here. Discussions with the Ward Councilors are essentially centered around how the second proposal (B4) can function better. There is no conversation concerning why, other than some people’s view and the council’s vote, the first proposal should be scrapped.
Any view of the old building is just a PERK for the neighbor’s not the school participants, a costly perk, but a perk all the same. The only purpose of spending all of this time and money is for the students, teachers, staff and students to be in the BEST learning environment and get there SAFELY, just as it was for Angier and Zervas.
Decisions are being made and carried out backwards. Presentations of new and completely different proposals of school buildings don’t happen on the same night as they are voted on. At least at Zervas, when a new plan surfaced at the last minute, it was rejected.
Why keep the old building???
If the city is paying for a new school then design a new school.
By keeping the old building there will be educational sacrifices.
Times change as does education. Cabot needs to be
Built to last 100 years. Don’t keep the old building.
Angier held many memories but the new school
Will meet the modern educational needs of our children.
Having the gym and cafeteria and library on the main floor is
Amazing.
How many times has Humpty Dumpty been knocked off the wall? Will he not still be the adolescent challenge..
Mike, while you’re absolutely right that this sets a bad precedent for school building projects, when it comes to other things like public works projects and council votes, “final” decisions get overturned all the time. It’s part of what makes living in Newton so special.
Newton Mom – I completely agree. I certainly hope the City is not spending time and tax money to preserve a creepy looking Humpty Dumpty.
@lucia – If they’re not, I want him 😉
Jerry – I sure wish this whole situation was a joke. Unfortunately, it’s not.
Ellen Ishkanian wrote about this in today’s Globe.
@Jane Franz – No joke. I like Humpty in the photo, even if Lucia thinks he’s creepy. I assume they’re keeping him but if not ….
Humpty is reminiscent of the NNHS bookend tigers which graced the main entrance of building 3. Before the demolition, under the cover of darkness, they disappeared. Historical enthusiasts at the time were perplexed as to their whereabouts. Only the shadow knows. The statute of limitation on theft has expired. Perhaps knowledge on what happened might be gained by Mayor Tom Concannon. Should that same fate happen to HD, would that be a blessing?
The globe article was very telling. Emily lays out the rationale in the article as follows:
“I had reservations about the original plan for a couple reasons. First, I didn’t like that the placement of the gym on the southeast corner of the school obstructed the historical facade that we had voted to preserve,” said City Councilor Emily Norton, who represents Newtonville and serves on the building committee.
“Second, I knew that as a stand-alone addition, the gym would cost more in heating and cooling every year, at a time when the city is working to increase energy efficiency.”
So it is facade and energy efficiency. The latter is a true statement, but only marginally so. Yes it will cost more to heat/cool the building. But that was true at Angier as well, was it not? Also, in today’s age, with some extra money spent that heat/cool extra cost can be minimized. And it is not like we are talking about a major distance away. Someone should ask if this extra cost can be quantified. The gym will be attached on two sides, and I know the green building folks use that as a positive in benchmarking for energy efficiency. But it seems strange to highlight that portion considering the various ways to mitigate it (and especially in comparison to what is there already). I realize that this issue is near and dear to Emily, but I’d hope she’d be looking at the wider picture as well.
As for facade, folks should drive by the building right now. You can’t really see the facade via Cabot. The view from cabot Park will be obstructed under the original plan about a 1/3 of the way down the Park. It isn’t as bad as folks think. Does it effect the facade? Yes it does.
What does this mean? It isn’t that Emily is incorrect, it is just that she puts the accent on the wrong syllable, so to speak. By perfecting for energy efficiency and facade, she weakens the educational component. That is strongly supported by the wishes of the school, the after school program, and the parents. So on one side are the “users” of the school building. The other side is the “viewers” (either literally or a view towards energy efficiency as a cause). The Viewers aren’t “wrong”. I don’t seek to anger them. But their kids don’t go to the school it feels like. They won’t be working at the school. The issue will long fade for them while my kids will be dealing with this for another 13 years. I still say maximize for the educational component, and try and mitigate the facade issue by a clear delineation between the old and the new.
Two other points: It has been said before, but the community did compromise by keeping the historic building. It would have been far easier to tear it down, and many parents wanted that. This feels like a double dipping. This feels like unfair dealing on the part of the city and those advocating for the new plan.
Final point. The news article has a consistent theme. The old plan wasn’t going to pass city council. And why was that? Emily and Susan. I’ve heard no one else from the city council own this issue. I or my friends have talked to a few. They all point (very quietly) to Emily and Susan (and sometimes Jake, but he doesn’t have a vote). So where does that leave us?
Perhaps this new plan was just an attempt to give the gym being moved a fair shake, an attempt to convince the city that the due diligence was being done. We move forward with the old plan, and whatever delay is chocked up to the a messy process.
Or.
The new plan is the only plan. We start over in many ways. We are delayed six months at least. We lose out on maximizing education at the school. We gain a nice facade view and energy efficiency. And hundreds of parents are left with a bad taste in their mouth, and the knowledge that when push came to shove, their local and at-large representatives made a choice that wasn’t in the best interests of the most local of local issues, the kids that go to the village elementary school.
I’m hoping for the former. If I was a betting person, I’d bet on the latter. Perhaps I’m just cynical.
@Fig
I hope this is about demonstrating diligence.
A choice for the new alternative is choosing building views over children. Its that simple.
It feels like Cabot kids are worth less than Angier kids. The energy efficiency arguments are exactly that. Even making them while other schools are being built otherwise is extremely offensive and tone-deaf.
This will have consequences far greater than a bad taste in the mouth. Cabot parents are very angry. There are few things the city council does that are more important than providing top notch, safe schools. If they can’t accomplish that for Cabot kids, after doing it for Angier and Zervas kids, we have a serious problem.
PS The continued lack of posting on Cabot from regulars on V14 is extraordinarily disappointing.
I very much appreciate @fignewtonville level-headed perspective. The pause irritated many, but I consider that to be behind me. The CSBC is now left with two plans.
The approved plan, without any qualification meets or exceeds all educational programming, public safety and siting needs (ie, unifying the school and park in an appropriate way). Which is what you would expect from a process that took 18 months and looked carefully at the myriad priorities of the new Cabot.
The second plan falls short on all of these needs, but perhaps creates a more appealing visual (to some), and creates some building and energy efficiencies. Can it be “re-worked” to eventually get to where the approved plan is on education? Maybe. With a lot of time that we don’t have. Can it every unify the school and park? No. Can the pickup/drop off meet the standards of Safe Routes? No.
It doesn’t mean the second plan is garbage and it doesn’t mean the motivation to get Cabot redesigned to open up the view was misguided. However, the design team came back with 8 versions to accommodate this point of view and only this single alternative was minimally acceptable. And has been quickly panned by the educational and Safe Routes community to be inferior to the approved plan.
So the committees decision on Thursday ought not be terribly difficult. I can assure them that the parent community has put the “pause vote” behind them and committee members should not feel dug-in. There are two plans – one is very good and one is average and the June 2 vote ought to reflect that difference.
Hear hear, @fignewtonville, @Paul, and @Newtonville Dad. Thanks for trying to keep this very important upcoming vote in the current V14 discussion.
It is clear across the board that those involved in the daily activities of Cabot School, whether teachers, administrators, or after school program employees, have a clear preference for the approved plan. They state that the educational program will be better in the approved plan than in Plan B. There is no reason to doubt those who are involved on the front lines, working in the building every day.
And we continue to hear nothing from those that support plan B in terms of how it meets the educational goals. And that’s telling in its own right. If the educational components of the two plans were close, I’d expect them to be extolling Plan B’s virtues. Instead, we hear crickets.
I also want to concur with what Paul said regarding the lasting aftereffects of this process if Plan B is chosen. The committee spent many months developing the approved design that incorporated community input. If this plan is jettisoned in favor of a barely-sketched out plan, voters are going to be left with a terrible taste in their mouth. The parent community is angry, and we’re not going to have forgotten about this by the next election.
Cabot is an elementary school not a showpiece for energy efficiency or a piece of art best viewed in a certain location. Those are just perks. It is being built to educate and provide safety for small children.
I agree with the above 4 posts. I know I’m being redundant but want to mention a few things again, maybe not as nicely.
At this point, I am losing interest in having the historical facade be preserved. It seemed like a good idea at the time but now it is being used as a stumbling block for building the best and safest educational program. If a decision is to be overturned I vote for that one. Jerry can have Humpty and dump him in the Bad Art Museum.
Emily, I haven’t heard Susan’s reasoning, is giving ridiculous reasons for changing the decision. I support and practice energy efficiency whenever possible, but not at the expense of children’s safety and education. Should we eliminate crosswalks because idiling cars produce more pollution and have pedestrians cross streets like the frog in the video game. Of course not but its no more stupid than saving a small bit of energy by making it less safe than it could be for students to safely arrive at and depart from elementary school.
Is it a fact that the city council would not vote to approve the original plan? Probably if Emily and Susan asked them not to. Is that a good thing? No because they shouldn’t have that much influence over how the council votes. At this point, the City Councilors may not even see the original plan to make a comparison.
I don’t like pitting one village against another but in this instance the two new schools in Waban have a similar gym placement for the same valid reasons as the originally approved plan for Cabot. What works well at Angier and Zervas will work well for Cabot. The only difference is Cabot kept the old building instead of building a new one and now a few unspecified residents don’t like their view of the old building. Really? That is not a valid reason to change the plan. First the educational and safety plans had to be worked around the old building, which they were, and now that old building is being used as leverage to scrap all of that work.
After 18 months of study and meetings, an aesthetically pleasing building placement, a safe way for children to arrive and depart and good educational plan was approved for Cabot. Build it already.
@Paul –
This thread looked like it’s full of comments from V14 regulars. If you think there’s additional news/developments that should have their own posts – feel free to write something up and send it to me ([email protected]) and I’d be happy to post it.
Otherwise I’m pretty out of the Cabot project loop so don’t have any additional info of my own to post about the project.
Jerry, I don’t know about Paul, but I’m frustrated by the lack of posts from Emily/Susan/Jake. Very frustrating. I think Paul thinks highly of Emily from prior dealings. Same with me for Susan. Paul and I have had our blunt discussions on other Newtonville issues. the fact that both of us are disappointed with our representatives should show that this is an issue that has disappointed a wide swath of folks in Newtonville.
Susan in the news article said that many folks have contacted her about the historic facade. As many as the hundreds that contacted her on the original plan to voice support?
@Fig: As much as I might wish that our electeds spent their every waking hour reading and responding to Village 14 (in other words be more like you, Paul or me), it’s unreasonable to expect them to do so, especially when it’s likely that every comment they post will have 4-5 comments asking for more comments. These are not full time jobs.
@Greg – not yet……
Greg:
I’m understanding of that actually. But don’t you think for important decisions that Emily/Susan/Jake have a responsibility to explain themselves to their constituents? They don’t want to post here. No problem. How about a group event at the Senior Center? Or a meeting at the New Art Center? Or an email update that points out the positives for the new plan and even attempts to deal with the very real concern that the new plan worsens the educational mission? Don’t you think they owe us even a minimum level of communication? The new plan has been out for more than a week. When it was about solar car ports, Emily was posting multiple times a day. I know Jake reads the blogs. Susan is a frequent commentator. I’ve met ZERO folks among the Cabot parents who have gotten a detailed explanation as to what is going on. These are our representatives. I’m not saying they need to be at my beck and call, I’m asking for a minimum level of responsiveness, in any form.
Perhaps they feel like a 2 minute speech on Thursday will be sufficient.Beats me. But calling them out on their lack of communication isn’t unfair or unreasonable when it is over a period of a week and the vote is 2 days away.
@fig, I’ve hosted two office hours in the last three weeks – including one at Cabot School; have responded to the online petition, have posted in V14, and of course have corresponded with the leaders of Safe Cabot over email. Throughout the controversy my position has been consistent: The CSBC has done its due diligence and the City Council should support its June 2nd decision; I will vigorously lobby my colleagues towards that end.
I have tremendous respect for the members of the CSBC and I’m confident they will choose the best educational program. And despite the overwhelmingly contrary prevailing opinion, I actually believe the CSBC process is a noteworthy example of a deliberative body overcoming the momentum of sunk-cost bias. They made a mistake in February by not fully digesting the purchase of 23 Parkview, but then they made the unpopular – and I think, responsible – decision to revisit assumptions. That’s a hard thing for individuals to do, let alone groups.
As @Newtonville Dad puts it so thoughtfully, though, that decision is now behind us. The City Council, School Committee, and Cabot parents should unite behind the June 2nd decision and work together towards an on-time, on-budget, world-class elementary school.
Jake – People want to know where you stand NOW, not after Thursday’s vote. Which design do you think provides for the best educational program? Why is this so hard for you to do?
The Cabot parents are tired of being told what they “should” do and I don’t blame them. Treating a group of extremely thoughtful, diligent, articulate, and committed parents like naughty children isn’t going over well. What you “should” do is tell the community where you stand on the approved plan and Plan B.
Jake, I think you miss the forest for the trees. The issue isn’t about the process. I could give a hoot about the process. The issue is that important decision in front of us on June 2.
It is a decision. Our representatives are on the committee. They are clearly the most important people on that committee. They are your collegues and our representatives. This is their LOCAL village school. They are going to choose between option A (prior approved plan) and option B (new potential plan). Neither Emily or Susan has given the wider public any indication how they will vote or why. You state that you will effectively be firmly behind the decision, no matter what it will be. Effectively because you don’t have a vote, you have the luxury of being on the sideline for this one. Fine. But don’t expect any Cabot parent to praise you or care about your ability to lobby your colleagues when you don’t support either plan a or plan b. Cabot is going to get a new school. Telling us you are going to push to make that happen once the hard vote has been taken doesn’t represent much of a stand. Effectively you are going to be firmly behind the winner, no matter which way the wind blows. Again, that is your right, and this early in your political career I don’t blame you for doing that I guess. But let’s be honest about the value of your consistent stand and your vigorous lobbying effort.
Sunk Cost bias is a lovely excuse for how we got here, but you draw the wrong conclusion from the business school lesson if you think that it means that the extra analysis is worthy in and of itself. Sunk Cost bias definitely happens in the real world, and retracing ones steps is a painful process. But the ultimate goal is what matters, the path is often secondary. Sunk Cost bias has a corrollary that isn’t often as featured in business school but often effects businesses in an equal manner: analysis paralysis. You know, that horrible feeling when you realize that your city can’t get out of its own way, and a limited change of facts requires a six month reevaluation?
In the end, I’m fine with this limited delay if the right decision is reached. Really and truly. Let’s take the extra time and vote based on what really matters, which is the educational program at the school, same as at Angier, same as at Zervais. Realizing that Sunk Cost Bias exists doesn’t insure the RIGHT decision, it just insures more evaluation of the status quo. The facts seem pretty clear to me, to the school, to CASP, to the parents about the advantages of the prior program. I’m willing to take a look and see if my decision is based on sunk cost bias, that is what the past six weeks have been about. Are Emily and Susan equally likely to do the same, and realize their own sunk cost bias when it comes to pushing a site plan which is clearly inferior to the original? I have my doubts.
And Jake, couldn’t your last statement also have applied to Susan and Emily six weeks ago? “The decision is now behind us. Susan and Emily should unite behind the original April decision and work together towards an on-time, on budget, world class elementary school” Same words. They didn’t listen the first time. Why should we? Why WOULD we, considering that no one can explain how the new plan is better from an educational perspective.
And Jake, lest you think I’m being tough on you, I give you credit for posting, even when I’m sure you knew you were going to be hammered a bit. I admire that, even if I didn’t admire your post. Perhaps Emily and Susan will be outvoted. Then you’ll have a real chance to prove that you can be more than a politician and to take a stand on your own. But I’m guessing you won’t get the chance unless Emily and Susan revisit their own sunk cost bias and look at the plans side by side. You might want to talk to them about it.
@Greg
Fig said it pretty well. Emily has a continued and recent history of posting– frequently– on topics that she cares about. Her close-to-radiosilence on this topic is uncharacteristic and disappointing. But as Fig wrote, its not about V14. There were multiple ways of proactively engaging the residents of Ward 2 over the past month, and none of them have happened by either Susan or Emily. Its frankly not a defensible position.
@Jake
This is an important issue. A really important issue. It may have happened to be early in your first term, but it will end up being one of the most important issues in your career here that directly impact your ward. After now seeing the actual alternative, to remain effectively indifferent seems unfathomable. This is a character moment for you too. Your statement includes the phrase “best educational program”– do you not have an opinion on which plan that is? Your constituents would like to know.
PS Words matter. This project is no longer on-time– that would be January 2019. Let’s acknowledge that fact. The “pause” has effectively solidified a delay of nine months to September 2019. I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that January 2019 is still feasible.
Greetings all, my apologies for not posting before now, I have a full time job and 3 kids so sometimes I go a few days without visiting V14. Unfortunately I had a work conflict so did not attend the May 23 meeting. I will be at the June 2 meeting and am looking forward to getting more details then. At this point I don’t think we have enough information to conclude, as some have, that putting the gym on the north corner mean that Cabot students will have an inferior educational experience. Remember the previous plan was worked on for a year, the alternatives have been worked on for only a few weeks. I’d also like to remind everyone that there was widespread approval from the Cabot School Building Committee to look at moving the gym to the north side, including from the CFO Maureen Lemieux, CAO Dori Zaleznik, Facilities Manager Josh Morse, Deputy Superintendent Sandy Guryan, and City Councilor Ruthanne Fuller. City Councilor Deb Crossley, who is also chair of Public Facilities and an architect by trade, also spoke in favor of taking time to see if the gym could be moved. School Committee Chair Matt Hills and member Steve Siegel also approved the additional review. And if anyone thinks that I have such powers of persuasion as to bring all of those individuals to my side on this argument – or ANY argument – well please share that opinion with them so they can get a good laugh. I am not holding my finger in the wind and deciding my position based on where I think the most voters are, I am doing what I think is right for the Cabot community and for the wider Newton community, as I always do. I get that people will not always agree with where I come down, as indeed it is impossible to please all the people all the time (or actually any of the time, if we’re really talking about ALL of them).
And one more thing. A Cabot PTO parent who has been particularly vocal told me, to my face, that the reason I am supporting this delay is that I want my children, who attend Horace Mann, to be in Carr before the Cabot kids. Now never mind that even under the new site plan, Cabot would move to Carr in fall of 2017, ahead of Horace Mann. Never mind that once Horace Mann moves to Carr (planned for fall of 2019), there will be no other schools moving to Carr because the move is permanent, as then Lincoln Eliot will serve as the new swing space. Never mind that my youngest will be entering FA Day Middle School in the fall of 2019, so my children are unaffected by any of this. (Maybe she is assuming he will be held back.) Never mind that I wrote not one but 2 op-eds in favor of the overrides, including the debt exclusion for Cabot School, knowing the plan was for Cabot to be addressed before Horace Mann. No never mind any of that, she was quite certain in her opinion. I am happy to say that usually, in my experience, the level of discourse in Newton politics rises above conspiracy theories and coocoo-for-cocoa-puffs – but unfortunately, not always.
Yeah, I hate when that happens.
Emily, rest assured you should not have to qualify your motives. Constituents recognize your dedication to getting the best deal for all, after all you were instrumental in extracting the last minute ASP affordable units from Dinosaur.
@Emily
Better late than never.
“At this point I don’t think we have enough information to conclude, as some have, that putting the gym on the north corner mean that Cabot students will have an inferior educational experience. Remember the previous plan was worked on for a year, the alternatives have been worked on for only a few weeks.”
A couple of thoughts.
1. This sounds like an acknowledgment that the current alternative is not as good as the currently approved plan. You believe its potentially possible the plan could get there with further time and work, but that the current one is not as good.
2. The “pause” was designed to see if there was an alternative as good or better than the current approved plan. Right now its not, as you acknowledged. So you are left with two choices for tomorrow. A) Re-approve the approved plan as its currently the better one B) Further delay the process to further evaluate whether a north side placement MAY be as good as the current approved plan. B is not a tenable choice. Further delay without a guarantee of an equally good educational program is not good project management, nor fair to the Cabot community. The commitment you all JUST made in creating the pause was to see if an alternative is as good in the six week period, in your judgment that bar has not been met– moving the goalposts AGAIN with a further delay is simply not a fair option.
3. Its a fallacy to think more time will enable the alternative option to be equally good. While you say its been a few weeks, that really isn’t accurate. North side gym placement options have been looked at over the past year. The reality is that the space on the north side is limited, even with the Potter property purchase, which requires any plan of that sort to make the gym the focal point of the design, and requires the classrooms to be placed around it. That makes the educational program subservient to the physical constraints of a gym on the north side, leading to a sub-optimal placement of the classrooms. That dynamic is not changing no matter how much time is spent on the alternative. There simply isn’t enough space on the north side to allow the architects to create an equally good educational program.
I don’t see how you could support the alternative plan tomorrow night. There are real questions whether a plan could become equally good, and its simply not fair to the Cabot community to continue a delay without assurance that the choice will be as good. Not good stewardship of City resources as well. Time is money.
@Paul – no it is NOT “an acknowledgment that the current alternative is not as good as the currently approved plan.”
@Harry – that was Amy Sangiolo not me.
@Greg: I’m not seeing how that link has anything to do with conspiracy theories.
@Councilor Norton: One of your constituents said you supported the Cabot delay so your kids could go to Carr first. You told your constituents that the Charter Commission’s voted to “eliminate you.” Both are “coocoo-for-cocoa-puffs.”
There was support at the last CSBC to “pause” for one month to see if a new plan was what was described to me as far superior to the approved plan. Plan B didn’t even exist when those people you named voted for the pause. Plan B has turned out to be a disappointment at best and does not serve the educational needs of the Cabot community nearly as well as the approved plan. Unfortunately, Plan B has several serious serious deficits, but the safety issues for the drop-off and pick-up plan should end the discussion of this plan at the get go. But then you look at the plan for the inside of the building and it clearly is not superior to the approved plan in any way.
All to save a facade. May the Ward and Franklin School communities be watching this debacle. When a group of preservationists who know nothing about elementary facilities comes knocking at your building committee door, stop them in their tracks because they do not have the best interest of your children at heart. If the appropriate decision had been made for Cabot at the very beginning – as it was for Angier community that now DOES have a far superior school facility – to take down the building, this conversation would not be taking place.
@Emily
What else could this mean?
“At this point I don’t think we have enough information to conclude, as some have, that putting the gym on the north corner mean that Cabot students will have an inferior educational experience.”
There is either enough information to know that the altnerative is as good or there isn’t. Which is it?
This is by far the most one-sided thread I’ve ever read here in the 14th Village, where people don’t generally agree on the color of grass. A few posts have spoken to why taking this “pause” has been an important part of the process, but none have addressed the fact that the alternate plan is deeply flawed for reasons of functionality and safety.
I can’t be at the meeting tomorrow night, but I sincerely hope the Building Committee will realize that the alternate plan does not satisfy the original educational objectives for the school. Given the strength of the approved plan, significantly delaying the project in order to incorporate an aesthetic objective is not reasonable.
This from Paul “The reality is that the space on the north side is limited, even with the Potter property purchase, which requires any plan of that sort to make the gym the focal point of the design, and requires the classrooms to be placed around it. That makes the educational program subservient to the physical constraints of a gym on the north side, leading to a sub-optimal placement of the classrooms. That dynamic is not changing no matter how much time is spent on the alternative. There simply isn’t enough space on the north side to allow the architects to create an equally good educational program.”
and this from Jane “the safety issues for the drop-off and pick-up plan should end the discussion of this plan at the get go. But then you look at the plan for the inside of the building and it clearly is not superior to the approved plan in any way.”
These two points sum it up in a nutshell. The proposed alternate plan compromise education and safety of Cabot students which is unacceptable. What else is there to debate? The approved plan should move forward!
@emily: With all due respect, I do not believe there was “widespread approval” of the pause with the CSBC. While several members of the CSBC voted for the pause, I think they may have felt strong armed by the Ward 2 Councillors that they would not allow the plan to get through the City Council without the pause. I guess with that threat, whether explicit or perceived, they “supported” the pause.
As for people thinking of ulterior movies – to refresh your memory, at one of the early meetings where Cabot parents were present, you said that the Carr school may or may not be the swing space for Cabot. I cannot remember if you suggested the alternate swing space was going to be Horace Mann or Lincoln Eliot, but they got the idea from you that Horace Mann may be moving in to Carr instead of Cabot.
Emily:
A few things:
1) First, thank you for posting. I admit I wish your posts had more details as to your thinking and rationale, but I’m happy you joined this conversation.
2) Conspiracy theories abound and I hate them. I remember my frustration when certain folks said I was a paid shrill for Austin Street, completely ignoring my hundreds of posts on other issues. When someone questions your integrity it burns in a way that someone questioning your judgment does not. It is silly to think you are voting in any way because it benefits you, or your kids, or for some nefarious reason. I don’t seem to agree with you on too much, but I admire you for your willingness to take a stand despite community pressure, which you have done many times.
3) All that said, and while I am sympathetic as I stated above, the second post is a bit of a red herring. Just because one parent in his or her anger was wrong, doesn’t make your decision making in this case any less frustrating for the many Cabot parents trying to understand it.
4) You state that you don’t have the powers of persuasion to bring folks to your side of the argument. With all due respect, it was pretty obvious in the last meeting how much power you and Susan actually have in this process. Everyone keeps telling the parents (me included) that the city council won’t approve a plan without the support of at least a majority of the ward 2 councilors. Jake is a tall reed blowing with the wind. You and Susan are therefore a veto. The city councilors aren’t going to vote down a school unless you refuse to support it. You can certainly prove me wrong on this. Declare that if the committee overrules you and Susan that you will vote for the school moving forward with the old plan.
5) In terms of timing, you keep moving the goalposts. First it was a month to evaluate, now you need more time to really truly see the benefit of the new plan for education.
6) You are proud of your ability to stand against the crowd and do what you feel is right for Newton. I’m always admiring of politicians that take stands against the crowd. But I expect that those politicians EXPLAIN those stands for them to have any value. With nuanced and fact based explanations. Emily, on one side I have my school principal (whom I trust and who is LEAVING so she is telling it like it is), my school PTO with the most dedicated parents who have been following these issues for months, Cabot Safe streets folks, the Cabot after school program, and my own experience with Cabot as well as my own experience dealing with construction projects and timelines. On the other hand, I have you and Susan, with very little data, with a half baked proposal thrown together in a month, with little or no attempt by either of you to address the real educational and safety concerns about the new program. I’m glad you don’t follow the crowd, but maybe, just maybe, the professionals that work at the school and the parents who go to the school daily aren’t a mob set out to insult you, but are a group of dedicated people trying to do what is best for their kids and their community and actually have some logical points.
Jake mentioned sunk cost bias up above. Rise above that. Vote for the old proposal. Or at least let the community decide without blocking this at the city council. Or at the very least, respond back to folks on this blog or at the meeting and let them know why their very real educational program concerns should take second chair to moving the gym.
Finally, to the Cabot community, I’m sorry to say that I will miss the meeting on June 2. I wish I could attend but I will be out of the state. And for anyone criticizing Emily for missing the May meeting, I agree with her 100% that these are part time positions and conflicts happen.
Which by the way is why I want to pay the city councilors a full time wage. But that is a post for another thread and another day.
Emily, one person mistakenly speaking out in frustration because you are not addressing the educational plan and the children’s safety does not create a conspiracy theory. It’s hard to understand why you wrote an entire comment about one incident when you could have spent that time answering questions about your support for Plan B.
You and Susan saying that the city council will not approve the approved design is definitely influential in the CSBC’s decision. Of course the reason they wouldn’t approve it has nothing to do with the plan already approved by the CSBC, it is ONLY because you and Susan wouldn’t approve it.
In your comment you say “Remember the previous plan was worked on for a year, the alternatives have been worked on for only a few weeks.”
I don’t know who decided that the CSBC would make a final decision between the original approved plan, the one that was studied and tweeked for a year before it was approved, and Plan B, which has only been considered for a few weeks but it doesn’t make any sense. Surely Plan B would need studying for longer than 4 weeks before the CSBC could make an informed decision the night of the presentation on June 2. That is coocoo-for-cocoa-puffs.
I realize that the Mayor is working to stay on schedule, on budget and meet the MA deadline so I wonder if this decision was to accomplish those goals. His letter says he supports the pause and the vote at the June 10 meeting and you have said you support the mayor’s statements. If this is the reason, it is a bad one.
I apologize in advance, but I want to review the process from April to May before the final decision is made tomorrow night. Bear with me or just skip it please.
After the April 5 decision to accept the final revision of the plan for Cabot School, Steve Siegel and Susan Albright, among others worked hard to explain the reasoning behind its acceptance over the objections of not having a good view of the old facade from Cabot Park.
Steve said “the top priority is to make this an excellent educational facility. And the gym placement, looked at through 20+ schemes by the designers and the DRC, allows for full fidelity to the educational programming.”
And “I agree with Susan Albright. We absolutely need to meet the educational program as spelled out by Newton Public Schools and the MSBA. In addition we are saving the original 1929 building and incorporating it into the enlarged school. The current proposal approved by the DRC and Cabot School Building Committee effectively does both. For me, successfully saving the original building is not defined by how unobstructed the views of the original building are from Cabot and Eastside. Its defined by how well we meet the program and how well the original and new construction are integrated as a full composition.”
And in an answer to this comment, “However pivoting the gym so it’s not directly in front of school seems like a simple and effective solution” Steve says, that the comment “illustrates one of the notions I wrote about in my last email — that “each possibility and option has the support of one stakeholder group or another.” Some stakeholders value the Eastside elevation over the Cabot elevation, so exposing one while covering the other makes sense. Others strongly value the original front of the school, which faces Cabot Street, and they think that obstructing it with new construction is a terrible design idea. And although there hasn’t been a formal vote on the building yet from the Newton Historic Commission, their administrator in attendance at the joint CSBC/DRC meeting a month ago noted that the Commission places value on both elevations and would not choose one over the other.”
Then at a CSBC meeting on May 5, a “new” proposal was submitted that had a discarded scheme with the new buildings moved to have a better view of the old facade from the park and a vote was taken to “pause … for 4 weeks in order to determine if an alternative configuration using more of the north side of the site can be developed, including time and cost estimates, and incorporating the priorities … ” followed by letters from the mayor supporting the pause.
In addition a meeting was scheduled for June 2, at which time “the new schematic design will be presented and after public comment the CSBC will take a final vote to determine which design will be sent forward to the city council for site approval.”
Next, as Susan Albright said, “The working group met on May 23, reviewed the 8 plans and asked the design team to further develop plan B4. This has the massing of all the structures on the north side of the building.”
The statements now made by the reps and the administration fully support making this new plan work. Valid, thoughtful problems with Plan B4 are being raised by stakeholders who took part in the previous year long process and worked to make sure the best plan had been developed and approved. These problems were dismissed immediately and the only discussions since have been about fine tuning Plan B.
Two Ward 2 reps, Susan Albright and Emily Norton, gave interviews to the globe extolling the virtues, not of the better educational program or the children’s safety, but it’s energy efficiency and view of the facade. The former priorities have not even been addressed. (The other Ward 2 rep, Jake Auchincloss, continues to support the process without actually commenting one way or another.)
I think some of the members of the CSBC voted for the “pause” because Susan and Emily were determined to veto the approved plan or just to see the possibilities which would mean to me they will support the previous, obviously better plan tomorrow night – unless Susan and Emily again say they will veto it. But I also believe others expected Plan B would be developed during the “pause” and already plan to vote for it.
Some influential people believe strongly in making the view the main priority. I have spoken to some, as have others, and it’s clear they are lobbying for the view of the old facade.
What happened in May to flip flop from supporting the approved design to going back to a discarded design is unknown. It’s any wonder conspiracy theories begin with so many unanswered questions and secrecy.
Hey everyone – this is Newton! Education comes first, the rest is just icing on the cake. We took a pause to double check the math and appease some folks – plan B turned out to be inferior from an educational needs perspective – so we get over it, unite and move on with the original plan. Thursday’s final CSBC decision is a great opportunity for folks to step up and bring closure to this mess. Let’s heal the rift and focus on building a world class school for future generations to come!
Can the CSBC please listen to the professionals that carefully developed an appropriate educational plan, and not to rush toward a design that dismisses so many prominent connections?
Please omit the idea that children and teachers will “adjust” to a sub-par plan that only attempts to eliminate the south gymnasium.
We pride ourselves on education, and this is the reason why Plan A needs to move forward – it is the plan that best represents the high standard of Newton schools.
All that being said, I want to address the lack of basic Architectural principals of Plan B rather than Programmatic faults as stated in previous comments here:
1. FORM & FUNCTION: Most have forgotten the young age (5 – 11) of Elementary children. Our building identifies with its function as a school for young children. Our existing school is intimidating to approach as a Kindergartner or First Grader with the 3 story high brick wall as the main (east) facade as it currently stands. This is unfortunately magnified with the bulky massing of the B4 plan. Traditionally, an Elementary school is lower and sprawled so that it is proportioned and approachable for young children, the end users. The approved plan is better suited for young children due to the “balanced” massing versus compact high density volume at the north end.
2. OLD & NEW BALANCE: From a Historic perspective, adding excessive mass to one end of a historic structure does not beautify the existing structure, it has the opposite effect. The varied masses in the Approved Plan: the gymnasium, art, library, music and classrooms are proportioned better to balance “old and new”.
3. DAYLIGHT: So much time as been spent looking at the school as an object on a site, lets consider the people inside.
South and east daylight are preferred over north ambient and late sun from the west. The students and faculty get the least desired placement in the entire building, yet that is where they spend most of their day in the classrooms.
The Approved plan with the gym @ the south will shade the Plaza from direct south sun, which can get very hot during recess.
4. VIEWS: The main purpose of building a new school is the educational program. The classrooms are where 400 students and 60 staff members will be teaching and learning for at least 5 hours a day. From what plan B4 offers, the classrooms are situated on the north and west walls where they have NO view of Cabot Park (the desired view), and are up against residents now closely abutting the new addition, as well as the new Potter Way road. The 2 ½ story gym blocks any view toward the park from the 2nd and 3rd floors where the children and staff spend most of their day.
Park views provide a calmer, open vista that promotes thoughtful reflection (better than views into people’s homes). In the Approved Plan, half the classrooms have park views. Plan B has no classrooms in the new addition looking over the park!
I understand the complexities of the site and that neither the Approved Plan or B4 is a perfect solution. That being said, I can’t imagine spending 43 million dollars to build a school that has prioritized viewing the historic structure from “one side of the park” – over the students and teachers who utilize the school on a daily basis.
5. CABOT PARK: Cabot School uniting with Cabot Park, not Cabot Street:
With the mass at the north (B4), the site is oriented “away” from Cabot Park and angled toward Cabot street (blocking the majority of the park to the north). In the Approved Plan, the opposite occurs, where the gym is in a sense protecting the students from Cabot street by opening up the “entire” park to the north without a mass blocking the park.
6. MASSING & SITE:
A. On a 1.78 acre site, the Approved Plan takes advantage of as much of the site as possible, spreading the functions and impact of the addition, reducing the burden on any one side of the site, while integrating the school with the park.
B. Plan B essentially packs the whole program into less than 1 acre on one end of the site — a configuration that actually cuts the school off from the park. Architecturally, this makes little sense given the concessions already made to maintain the existing structure.
C. Picking Plan B prioritizes residents’ of (1) side of the building desire to have views of the old building above the impact on residents on the other (3) sides, and most importantly, above the education of current and future generations of Cabot School students.
@fig your last post to Emily demonstrates that you are simply not understanding the dynamics here. You implore her to “let the community decide without blocking this at the city council”.
The city council will approve tomorrow’s vote.
You and Jane and Rhanna, either explicitly or implicitly, dismiss process in favor of outcome. I believe quite a lot in process. It’s what keeps the messiness of local representative government from devolving into a real-life comments thread.
The April 5th approved plan has emerged stronger from the 4-week pause and is, I believe, the superior options. But the way this process must now work is that the CSBC decides on the merits, free from City Council interference. And the way to prevent City Council interference is for city councilors to not interfere.
@az
Wow. Thanks for bringing some fresh and clearly informed perspective to this thread.
@Jake
Appreciate you clarifying your perspective, including an assessment that the April 5th approved plan is better.
Jake – I’m a teacher. Process is everything to me, and I mean that. But this process has been going on for 2 years. At some point it’s time to move forward with the best educational outcome for the kindergarten – fifth grade students at Cabot School.
Thank you for stating your position on such a controversial issue in the early months of your first term. You could have remained silent and you didn’t.
@Jake Agreed, thank you for declaring your position publicly, before the vote. I’m glad you’ve been listening to the various pro and con arguments.
For anyone interested in the attending the meeting/vote: it starts at 6pm tomorrow (Thursday) in the Cabot gym. Before coming in to the building, take a few moments to look at the markings out and around the school illustrating the footprints of the two plans in relation to the park and the existing building. It helps visualize the differences in a way diagrams can’t.
Jake:
First, I agree with Ali and Paul, thank you for stating your preference here. I take back my criticism in my earlier posts happily.
Second, as for my not understanding the dynamics, I’m pretty sure you are wrong about that. I’ve had a ton of conversations with folks (including some of your fellow councilors privately) and I’ve talked to others who personally know the members of the committee. There was one consistent theme: Susan and Emily. Perhaps it is possible all of them are not understanding the dynamics as well….
It is entirely possible that the City Council will vote forward the original plan if it passes the committee tonight. But one of the main reasons it may not pass the committee tonight is the committee fearing that if Susan and Emily both vote against it at the committee and the council, it won’t pass the council. That fear is what pushed the one month delay, and it has the potential to push it again so that more information is gathered on option B4. You keep focusing on what happens after tonight, but the two are linked. That is why so many of us are laser focused on this meeting, to push the committee to call Emily and Susan’s bluff. I’m just being realistic. Despite Emily’s protests above, she should talk to her fellow committee members and councilors. Many of them are very focused on the process, and they’ve been clear as to why and how we got to this point.
AZ layed out a great summary of major differences. I expect a spirited discussion with many many cabot parents tonight. I urge the members of the committee to have courage, to vote for the best school layout for the site and its true purpose, a school first, a historic building second.
And I urge supporters of the original plan to keep it civil. A councilor that feels aggrieved and persecuted isn’t being persuaded, and just allows them to deflect as shown above. Having a voice in the process doesn’t mean you have the right to make it personal. If we lose tonight, I’m sure a number of us will focus on the next election, which is the civic way of dealing with representatives that don’t listen to the folks who elect them.
Jake, I want to thank you for expressing your opinion here as well.
Fig and others posting here also believe in process. This over a year process was successfully completed with the April 5 vote. Sunk cost bias had nothing to do with advocating to stick with the approved plan.
I completely agree with your comment that “the way this process must now work is that the CSBC decides on the merits, free from City Council interference. And the way to prevent City Council interference is for city councilors to not interfere.” Unfortunately that has not been the case up to this point. 2/3 of the Ward 2 City Councilors told the CSBC, and others, they would not vote for the approved plan which would lead to the city council not approving the plan leading to the unanimous vote to “pause” the process. Clear interference by City Councilors.
Tonight we are hoping that interference won’t happen again because that would defeat the purpose of the process to build the best school and wouldn’t allow the CSBC to decide based on the merits.
az, thank you for illuminating the architectural flaws in Plan B4.
I apologize for bringing ants to the picnic, but I feel this just has to be said. So here goes nothing.
This has been a fascinating and informative discussion concerning the relative merits of the “Approved Plan” vs. “Plan B,” which has helped to crystalize my thoughts about what we should do, although I doubt that my views will make anyone happy. I have listened carefully to all sides and tried to remain objective. While I do not wish to incite proponents on either side, I cannot help observing that this feels to me more and more like a lost opportunity. Both plans are flawed, although I have to say that, all things considered, the Approved Plan does appear to be the superior alternative at this point. Nevertheless, I think that with enough ingenuity and creativity (and time) the drawbacks of Plan B could be overcome.
But here’s the thing: no offense to everyone who loves the existing building (and Humpty Dumpty), but given the severe constrictions imposed by the site, preserving a school building that was designed and built almost 90 years ago makes almost no sense. If we are serious and truly honest about the quality of the education program, safety, environmental sustainability and, yes, aesthetics, instead of expending so much time and effort working around the shortcomings of the existing building, we should be building a beautiful brand new school like Angier that the Cabot school community will come to love just as much as the existing one.
Instead, regardless of which of the two plans gets approved tonight by the CSBC, I fear that the City Council will now spend the next few months reviewing, modifying and approving a site plan that is less than ideal and suffers because of the decision to work around an antiquated building built in and for a different era. I have no desire to further delay the process, or inflame the Cabot school community, but I needed to get this off my chest. That being said, whichever plan is ultimately approved, I am confident that the City Council will do all we can to ensure that the final product is the best it can be and something the Cabot community and the whole city can be proud of.
I want to commend Susan and Emily for pursuing alternatives after the city was able to buy the property next to the existing school. It was the right thing to do. And I also want to the thank the CSBC for giving it serious consideration. Finally, I want to thank everyone who has weighed in on the blog and in the myriad emails and other communications councilors have received on this subject. In my view, this has been a very useful, thoughtful (for the most part) and enlightening conversation.
There are many of us who would like to go back in time to when the decision was made to keep the old building and reverse it. Jerry even wants Humpty if he is not saved. The problem now is the timeline to meet deadlines for MA and hold up the process of building the school, including the other schools in line.
At this point one of the two designs will be approved tonight. I sincerely hope it’s the already approved plan.
I’d echo Marti’s comments on Ted’s post. I *think* many of us Cabot parents would be thrilled to go back and start from scratch.
For those who don’t know — we were convinced to go with add/reno over new construction because we were told the Historic Commission “wouldn’t approve a third new school” — what I wouldn’t give to go back, knowing what we know now, about specious claims that this or that governing body won’t approve a particular design!!
(This should settle the ridiculous claim, by the way, that Cabot parents are out for their own kids’ benefit, since starting over would necessitate a much longer delay than pursuing A or B. Many of those most involved in this process won’t even have kids at Cabot when the school re-opens regardless of what happens.)
But, as Marti says, we don’t have this option. The MSBA won’t support that, and there are many other schools waiting patiently in line behind Cabot that can’t afford for us to pursue that avenue either.
Marti and Joanna, let me be clear. I am not advocating starting over for the reasons you state. At this late date, we all have to live with the decision to preserve the existing building. But it still feels like a lost opportunity to me. I could easily have kept my own counsel on this, but that just isn’t my style.
Thanks for clarifying, Ted. I couldn’t agree with you more on lost opportunities. From my perspective, hindsight has shown many throughout this process to date.
I hope lots of folks – elected and otherwise – plan to attend the meeting tonight so they can hear directly from the committee.
Ted, I always enjoy reading your comments whether I agree with them or not. I was intending my comment to be in agreement with yours on the “lost opportunity.” Inserting “time travel,” a favorite hobby of mine, did make that unclear.
Ted:
I love historic buildings. I wasn’t eager to tear down the school. I think folks just have to be realistic about what can be done. I hope Newton Historic and Mass Historic are realistic as well. The reality is that the school was built for a different age, for fewer kids and fewer classrooms. There is always a give and take, the school was going to have to become a mix of rehab and new construction.
So despite my preservationist leanings, I’m fine with the original plan. Is it a new school? No. But it still did a good job of meshing the old and the new. That’s the compromise. If folks were attempting to do this to the building for any other purpose but using a school I’d object. But the first purpose of the building is as a school.
I’m hopeful that the old plan will be voted through tonight. But I think a lot of us are still very upset with Susan and Emily. You praise them for pursuing alternatives. That’s fine. But if they were going to lead on this issue, they needed to actually lead, communicate, build a consensus, talk to constituents. As a whole, that just hasn’t been done. We’ll see how they vote tonight.
I’ll also note that even if the original plan passes, we are likely going to see a delay due to the various historic commissions looking again at this process. They opened Pandora’s box when they reopened a closed and approved process. I can’t really praise them for that either.
Thanks, fig. Regardless which plan moves forward, I want to be sure that the Cabot community gets a school that is every bit as good as Angier and Zervas and not have to wait another year for it. I am sure Susan, Emily and Jake all feel the same way. In my view, it was important to at least explore the options before a plan goes to the City Council for review and approval, rather than have to hash it out in the Public Facilities Committee during the site plan review process, let alone on the floor of the Council. But I told my colleagues from Ward 2 in no uncertain terms that I would support their efforts only so long as they did not jeopardize state funding or cause undue delays in completing the project. I recognize and acknowledge the concerns expressed by you and many others in the Cabot community, and I know a lot of work on mending fences lies ahead.
By the way, while City Councilors try to be collegial and respect the views of colleagues concerning projects in their own wards, whether it is a special permit, a fire station or a school, that does not necessarily mean the Council always defers to them. I can think of a number of instances when the decision of the BOA/Council has gone against the preferences of a majority or even all of the representatives from the ward, including projects in my own ward. So I think the concern that the City Council would not approve a particular plan without the assent of the Ward 2 councilors is somewhat overstated.
Unanimous vote to move forward with plan approved on April 5.
Well, the CSBC voted unanimously to support the “Approved Plan.” So we are going to have to make it work.
One parting thought. fignewtonville is correct that the historic review may put a fly in the ointment. But that is not because Emily and Susan opened a Pandora’s box. The Massachusetts Historic Commission weighs in on every project that involves state funding and historic buildings, and we have no control over them. The fact is that the Approved Plan completely obstructs the view of a significant part of the historic facade which is visible from a public way, and the MHC does not particularly care about the educational program. Indeed, getting the MHC to approve the demolition of Angier was a signficant hurdle for the city to overcome. The city is going to have to make a very compelling argument to the MHC that the Approved Plan is head and shoulders above Plan B, which does not cover up part of the historic building that is not already covered. And there is no guarantee that the MHC will buy it. So please do not be hard on Susan and Emily if the funding for the project gets delayed for that reason.
By the way, at the meeting tonight, someone pointed out that you could see the original North Entrance of the school through the windows of the gym. What you can see of it is pretty impressive. I wonder whether the MHC would have approved of the construction of the gym.
The proposed alternative plan obliterated the view of the historic portion of Cabot from the northwest, dead north, and northeast. It also dwarfed the historic portion of the school and did not honor the preservation of it. I would hope that any body committed to preserving the historic part of the school would take this into account.
What Sue said.
Ted–
You need to take a closer look at Plan B. It also obscured views of the Cabot building, just as with the re-approved plan. It is a misstatement to say that Plan B preserved the building better. It preserved some views of the building, at the expense of others. As did Plan A, but different ones. There are multiple public ways, and all views cannot be preserved. Beyond the views, the size of the one add-on building is an additional detriment to Plan B, as it dwarfed the old building. Plan A maintains the old building with greater prominence, as the multiple added buildings are smaller.
PS Weighing in today that Cabot should have had a new building is extremely unhelpful. Your input was needed 6-12 months ago when it could have been useful in the process. I don’t understand the logic- at all- of making that point this late in the game.
Tonight the Cabot School Building Committee voted unanimously in favor of the original proposal. I think a very compelling case was made that there are elements of the original design that were not able to be matched in the new design, including classroom placement and oversight of the students at drop-off. I would have favored a design with the gym on the north side if the educational and safety components could have been equivalent, but that did not turn out to be possible. I know for many this was an obvious conclusion all along, but I felt it was important to explore it.
Great to see closure on this. FWIW, at Safe Routes, we like to say “arrival” since not all students are dropped off by car #languagematters
I’ve started a new thread above and will close this one to comments.