A project update meeting will be held TONIGHT at the Ed Center, 100 Walnut Street, in Room 111 at 7:00 p.m. According to this flyer, the NewCAL project team “is eager to share the work that has been accomplished and would love your feedback”. The current short list of sites can be found here. A majority of the sites are parkland.
Which park site should the NewCAL be located or not?
by Amy Sangiolo | Jun 20, 2019 | Newton | 35 comments
New Cal will be a very costly project with no obvious suitable
site. Newton has a Senior Center. This new project appears to be
something more than a Senior Center and could be extremely
costly for the taxpayers.
Why are all the sites parkland?!
Imagine the outrage if a parking lot had been chosen!
@ Pat, because it’s expedient. I’ve asked for the list of 145 sites that the list of 24 was narrowed down from. According to the May 29 Finance Committee Report, the administration and project architect got from 145 to 24 by eliminating sites “already in use, impractical, or too small.” I’m wondering what “impractical” means, given that the YMCA is included in the 24. Also, why “already in use” is a bar. The former children’s library on Vernon Street was “already in use” as Parks & Rec HQ when they were booted out to make room for the Innovation Center.
But I’m curious what was not even on the list of 145, and how seriously the evaluators considered acquiring already-developed land like the former New England Mobile Book Fair, or a mansion, as Lexington did if you look at the comparisons in presentation attached to the May 29 Finance Agenda. Or putting the Aquinas parking lot underground and the senior center on top.
Or expanding the current practice of distributed sites for different activities (to additional sites around the city, to spread the wealth so to speak, so more people could walk to something or have a shorter drive.
I find it especially ironic that the city is contemplating another thing there’ll only be one of, somewhere that may not have any particular access to public transit, after the lamentations about lack of transit access to the Library, and .being told we must cut the Library parking lot trees to make a bigger parking lot. And how did they arrive at 75 parking spaces as sufficient for a new senior center? I checked the Tewksbury Senior Center, which is a very nice one-story senior center in a town of about 29,000. They have 90 parking spaces and I’ve seen it full at lunchtime.
Thought experiment: what if we hadn’t essentially sold the Austin Street lot for 198 years, and instead of a four story building going up, we had the new senior center on that footprint?
@Amy, thank you for starting this thread! I can’t believe there hasn’t been one on this topic before.
My guess is that it is mostly parkland because people will object and the default choice will be Northland
Thanks go to the Friends of Cold Springs Park and the Newton Tree Conservancy for bringing it to my attention. I generally post meetings on my website and newsletter but somehow missed this. Hoping for a good turnout and lots of community input! This will be an important project for Newton.
So the park sites are not considered “in use”?
@Julia – there has, in fact, been a thread on this exact topic:
https://village14.com/2019/03/30/hey-buddy-can-you-spare-a-couple-acres/#axzz5rR18LHBb
And many community meetings soliciting input on a centralized vs decentralized senior center(s), potential sites, etc.
Since when is Schechter not “in use.” This list is ridiculous. What happened to the idea of using Horace Mann? This is very disappointing…
@NativeNewtonian: Horace Mann or 687 Watertown Street will become the new home for the Newton Early Childhood Program. Apparently, Public Facilities Committee voted to approve the site plan last night.
Very informative meeting and discussion. Lots of audience questions. Josh is going to put the longest list on the city website tomorrow. Some of those sites could be reconsidered. Aquinas is on that longer list. Josh actually mentioned New England Mobile Book Fair (the old location) as something they looked at, but it was too skinny and too small.
Beside site selection, there was some discussion of programming, is it really for seniors, and what to call it. I’m thrilled to report that NewCAL is not the final name.
I livestreamed on Facebook so if you are on FB you can see two videos on my personal page, the long Q&A one, and a short presentation by the new architect. (The original architect declared bankruptcy. ) For some reason YouTube Live would not work, but I’ll try to get them downloaded from FB and uploaded to YouTube so you won’t have to be on FB to see.
I was surprised that it seems to be a preference to keep the proposed new building to 2 or 3 stories. Given that the new zoning code seems to be looking at much taller buildings – wouldn’t it make sense to look at taller buildings with a smaller footprint and underground parking as possibilities? The committee probably has already looked at this, but I just can’t find it online.
So the City is looking for a property that is about 2.5 acres, vacant, and almost treeless. That pretty much describes the old Pillar House property, in the southwest cloverleaf of I-95 and Rte. 16. It’s a bit over 2 acres and owned by Mass. DCR.
I think it’s ironic that with all the attention paid to NewMo so that seniors could get around more easily — which I concur is a valid and important goal — the one site that is central and also smack on a bus line, the current senior center, is not being considered for a modernization and overhaul, and that every place being considered is far from all the transportation and accessibility. The current senior center could be transformed, and it could be built (literally) over the current parking lot to add significant space and that would even provide protected parking in the winter and rain for the seniors.
What’s the difference in cost between an intergenerational center and a designated senior center? We need a new senior center and I hear broad support for one. However, I question the need for an intergenerational center and had my wrist slapped for questioning the need for the larger project. This is a place where the city, which is by all accounts strapped for money, could accommodate the needs of the senior population at a more reasonable price and perhaps more effectively by building a designated senior center.
How have the meetings about this project been advertised? I’m a senior, receive and read David Olsen’s emails about upcoming meetings every week, and haven’t heard about the meetings. I read his email this week and maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see this meeting included. When the city embarks on a major capital project, building a broad understanding in the community for the rationale behind the project is an essential part of the process.
I was astonished to learn that the city is considering building this facility on parkland. First, is there really a demonstrated need for it? Newton already has a senior center, not to mention a Y and Boys/Girls Clubs if younger generations are part of this. Second, why are we talking about ruining parkland and cutting down more trees when we should be preserving the city’s limited green space? And third, it seems to me that we have far greater priorities facing the city. Sure, there’s been a little progress on paving our streets and sidewalks, but the vast majority of them remain a disaster. Fix the streets and sidewalks first! Then there’s the matter of compensating our school employees. Pay our teachers what they deserve! And with all the talk about transit-oriented development, if Newton is actually going to go ahead and build this facility of questionable need, shouldn’t it be mandatory that it be located near mass transit? Here’s hoping that the cowardly council will stand up and push back on this proposal.
I was thrilled to see that our calls to attendance via various email streams yielded such a large turnout of thoughtful, patient, but concerned residents. To his credit, Public Building commissioner Josh Morse maintained an open, non-defensive attitude towards our suggestions. Yes, I’d prefer that the current site be expanded or that a new senior center replace whatever it is that is rising up on Austin Street.
Nothing said at that meeting alters my view that the new senior center not be sited in any park. It’s my impression that some of the sites suggested by the audience, pooh-poohed for some reason by the committee, could work just as well as any green space. Even Josh seemed to acknowledge that fact. Balancing costs and benefits, the city ought to be prepared to spend more money to find the best possible site.
Thanks to the city officials who attended, including the omnipresent Bob DeRubeis, Cheryl Lappin, Amy Sangiolo, and Lenny Gentile.
I attended the meeting last night. I was happy to see so many people there who were concerned about the potential loss of green space in Newton. They should build the NewCAL at Riverside and/or Northland. It may not be the optimal location(s), but by building there, Newton will not lose any parks or green space.
On person in attendance did mention building the NewCAL on a golf course. It certainly wouldn’t be easy to acquire or to lease the land, but all options should be on the table.
Nothing I have read over the course of the discussion of the need for a knew senior center has changed my mind that NewCal is a terrible name and what we need is a new Senior Center not an inter generational center.
Renovating and building an addition to the present senior center over the parking lot, with an underground parking garage seems to me to be the only practical solution near transit.
I’ve said it before, but if the current Senior Center site wasn’t adequate, perhaps the City could do a two-fer, build a new police station elsewhere (where?), and use the current police station site for an expanded center. It is close to lots of services and the cinema, West Newton will be renovated, there’s parking, it has an adjacent park.
A fundamental problem this project faces is that sites near transit and services are quite valuable, increasing the cost for the project. However, a site further from transit and population centers will increase the reliance on seniors driving (or being driven) to get there.
Found the main video saved to my phone, so have put that on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUHg9KHMYAg
It’s the whole Josh Q&A. Just missing the architect’s presentation at the end.
@Marti, LOL because I’m so happy to know I’m not the only one who hates this cutesy semi-acronym that sounds like a dietary supplement. After all the location questions seemed to have been asked, I asked about the name (1:08:52 in the video), and am delighted to report that it’s not (necessarily) the permanent name. Josh said essentially ‘we had to call it something’ but the permanent name will be a matter of robust conversation.
When someone asked later, ‘who’d like to call it the Senior Center?’ (1:20:20) it seemed like a lot of people raised their hands, and this was a room full of people who mostly seemed to be there for the location issue, not the naming issue.
I couldn’t make the meeting, but saw a copy of all the option sites the City had listed. A good plan should outline all possible options even if it’s unlikely the some of them aren’t serious candidates. That’s what Josh apparently did and one source I highly respect who was there was deeply impressed by his presentation. And this source does not offer the City praise lightly.
From a very advanced senior. “New Cal” okay, but “Senior Center”. probably much better Just don’t call it the “Old Folks Home”. And please don’t use the term “golden years” when referring to anything to do with seniors during any stage of our late innings game. Nothing draws more laughs from just about every senior I know than when they use “golden years” derisively to reference some of the painful physical difficulty many of us have. It also sounds like a variation of names they stick on so many nursing homes.
I’d be curious to see statistics on how many current users of the Senior Center use public transportation to get to and from there – eg. take the bus or train or use the ride.
Is this a $20 million project or $50 million? $70 million? I’m baffled that the city is going ahead with a major capital project and no one has asked how much it will cost. Will there be a debt exclusion override?
You can’t wring your hands about OPEB obligations one day and go ahead with a major (expanded) capital project the next and not explain the basic financial plan for it. Why are we even talking about where it will be before these basic questions are addressed?
just keep your hands off the west newton common
we getting enough shoved down here
@Jane – the budget is $16.45 million, to be paid from within the existing city budget.
Seniors already make up a large portion of the Newton population, and the percentage is expected increase significantly in the coming years. Currently only .15 percent (to be clear, that’s 15 hundredths of a percent, not 15 percent) of the city budget is allocated to support seniors. I think it is an appropriate investment for an underserved population.
The existing senior center, while it provides excellent programming, is completely inadequate both in size and design. Data from other new senior centers shows that more seniors participate when provided with an improved center that meets their needs.
When the city reached out to seniors in 2017 to hear about their issues and concerns, the number one issue was isolation. Providing a comfortable and inviting senior center (with transportation to/from the center via NewMo if needed) can be a godsend for seniors without other social outlets.
I hope the city is able to find an acceptable site to make this important project happen.
Alison – For some reason, I’m not expressing myself clearly. I am totally supportive of a new Senior Center. Completely. 100%. As you know, I am a senior and have first hand experience as to the size of the boomer generation and our needs – we’ve been a source of disruption due to our enormous numbers at every step of my life, dating back to my childhood.
I don’t support an intergenerational center because we have multiple gyms, swimming pools, and other community meeting places throughout the city for people of other ages. I simply don’t see the need when we have more pressing needs and the budget is so tight.
How much of the total cost will go to the senior section and how much to areas serving other generations?
Thanks for clarifying, Jane. My understanding is this: the estimated size and scope of the building wasn’t enlarged so that it could be an inter-generational center. Rather, there are things like a swimming pool and gym that were on the wish list for a senior center, but for which the expense can be better justified if they are fully utilized and benefitting more people across the city. For example, maybe a gym is on the wish list to support senior-programmed pickle ball and badminton 60 hours a week. But in the other 40+ hours a week that the center will be open, that asset can help satisfy demand for space for recreational basketball, futsal, etc.
Can the size and scope of the building be reduced to lower cost (and also to reduce the acreage needed for the site)? Definitely. But I don’t think reducing the size and scope is simply a matter of eliminating the intergenerational components; doing so would also reduce the breadth of senior programming that can be offered.
From what I can gather, Newton isn’t in wish list territory in terms of available revenue for any part of the population. We need to address OPEB obligations, transportation issues, an upgraded senior center, and unresolved employee contracts and even these basics will not be easy to accomplish.
I’m not making this up out of thin air – this information comes from various elected officials in the central administration, on the city council and the school committee who say we don’t have the money. If we want to add wish list items, I’m all for it once we address and resolve the basic functions of the city, and when we have reliable sources of additional revenue.
I worked very hard in support of a ballot question, with the hope that a positive result would increase revenue for the city. If I’d known the revenue was going to fund a wish list, I would’ve let someone else take the slings and arrows of that campaign. In addition, I’ve been supportive of development that will raise revenue and have repeatedly expressed support for a new senior center which I consider to be on the list of basics.
I’m going to come at this particular issue in a different way. I’d like the ward 2 Councilers to speak up and tell us what they view the future of the current senior center site to be. The city spent a fair amount of money just a few years ago to upgrade the entire outside, and in my view portions of it are already not being maintained, just look at the seating. I can understand the need for more space for senior center activities, but I would like Emily, Jake and Susan to speak up and push for current site to be maintained As a community resource. We have a chance for a much improved village center in Newtonville but the loss of that building to public use would be a blow.
As for siting a new Center, is it possible to either build next door to the Y and license their facilities to create a larger center, or build on a portion of the parking lot in Newton Center? Building a short parking structure could help allay the parking loss.
I think placing the senior center in a location next to or near an existing facility with other amenities is an excellent idea.
Building this facility on parkland is too absurd of an idea to bother discussing.
At 2.5 acres, it would take up 72% of Ward park; 60% of Pelligrini; 50% of Burr; 46% of Warren Lincoln; 22% of Cabot; 17% of Weeks. On the recreation question, there is already a shortage of playing fields in the city.
@all: The below is copied from the email that I sent to the Administration on “cost effective,” and more efficient NewCal Concept: (Details to be studied and worked out)
The purpose of this email is to add to the NewCal conversation an idea that I proposed in the Finance Committee meeting 2 weeks ago.
Recognizing that the older residents (I’m one) of the City of Newton went “all in” on education starting in the early 1990’s, building one of the top systems in the country, it’s now time to address the needs of seniors.
By this email, I would like to add into the ongoing analysis an “Olympic Village” concept for the NewCal program. The concept is that we utilize existing City assets and develop NewCal as a city wide concept with programs being offered at multiple sites focussing on use/need in different parts of the city. As examples of city assets:
*Existing Senior Center (Update the facility)
*Former Library buildings in Newton Corner and Newton Centre (update facilities). Possibly add in Waban and Auburndale.
*School Buildings after hours and on weekend. (Athletic facillities, pools, theatres, auditoriums)
*Armory Building: Many uses
*Parks for outside activities
*Other locations to be identified: (Special Permit approved Community Rooms, and Community *Centers such as Upper Falls, Lower Falls, and the Highlands.)
*Newmo: for transportation, along with adding city Senior Center shuttle buses.
Concerns:
*Parks and Recreation Sites: Why take these properties with other options such as this idea available?
*City Budget: This concept will significantly reduce the cost of one new large facility
*Building one big facility will attract a certain, and set demographic, and the project could then be construed as a poor use of valuable municipal funds.
Action:
*Add this concept to the design and planning team
*Develop budget numbers based on the “Olympic Village” model
*Reuse Committee: Administration begin the reuse process on the previously mentioned city assets.
With all the development, happening and planned, in Newtonville and along Washington St., at Riverside and Northland, why isn’t a new senior center incorporated into those plans? Are we on a mission to rid Newton of its “Garden City” monicker? How on Earth is it a good idea to replace an already existent senior center by locating it on much-used parkland?