Many people have written comments here or to me directly in agreement with my article suggesting that parkland, open space, or other protected land should not be used for the proposed senior center, aka NewCAL. But we all recognize, as well, that the current facility on Walnut Street needs replacement. How do we thread the needle between these two desires?
One of my heroes, long-time developer and philanthropist Norman Leventhal, always used to ask me and others considering a new project: “What’s the program?” He would follow this question by saying, “The program will drive the design.”
In the case of NewCAL, the process for determining the program was flawed. I’m not saying that those working on the concept were poorly intentioned. I’m saying, instead, that their charge was wrong in that there were too few constraints placed upon their imagination as they proposed ideas for the center. (I’m basing the following discussion on my reading of the publicly available documents from the project working group.)
Following the lead of the Mayor in her inaugural address in which she promised a: “top-notch Senior Center with a rich, all-encompassing program,” the Advisory Building Committee was charged: “To make sure we are looking at every aspect of the program, so that this project can serve the needs of all seniors, as well as fully analyze what other community needs might be able to be addressed as part of this initiative.” (Emphasis added.)
Steffian Bradley Architects were brought in to help. They held listening sessions, collected input questionnaires, and otherwise engaged in making sure that no possible idea was left out of consideration during the project’s planning phase. They also viewed successful senior centers in nearby communities for comparison. (Interestingly, not one of those was of the physical scale currently under consideration here.)
The theme of a “culture of healthy living” envisioned for the center led to a series of programmatic desires: Social spaces; piquing our curiosity (speakers, education, lifelong learning); exposure to nature (gardening, terracing, roof gardens); outlets for creativity (art classes, workshops, gallery shows, music, theatre); physical activities (fitness classes, fitness equipment, walking, tournaments, integrated fitness); nourishment (dining, food pantry, teaching kitchens, space for a farmers’ market); accessibility to services (SHINE, veterans, health, finance and tax guidance, volunteer matching). Each one of these had components that required more and more square feet. For example, a 14,000 square foot gymnasium was envisioned, complete with retractable bleachers, along with showers and dressing rooms. A swimming pool was mentioned as a possibility, depending on the site chosen. It was not included in the 36,888 square foot projected building size.
Well sure, who can be against any of these items? Indeed, many of these services and programs are already offered at other places in the city, by a variety of organizations. But is there really a need to provide all of them in one city-owned facility? Only if you believe that the purpose of the center is to serve the needs of all seniors, as was set forth in the charge to the working group.
The scoping problem is simply this: There was no directive to those involved to consider the extent to which the needs of Newton’s seniors are currently being met—or might be met—elsewhere in the city by cooperative programs with the numerous other institutions in town, by linkage with private developers, or otherwise. Instead, we had a process that was additive: Good idea? Include it in NewCAL! For example, of the 106 requests for specific facilities/programs collected by SBA from listening sessions, office hours, and questionnaires, only 3 or 12 (it’s unclear) were received for a gymnasium. Yet over a third of the proposed building is devoted to this feature.
It is not even clear from the papers produced by the working group whether a full analysis was done as to the possible use of the existing site. What is feasible there if a new building is constructed?
The plan prepared by SBA has now been turned over to another architectural firm, Bargmann Hendrie + Architype, which is unlikely to suggest any reduction in the project’s scope. Meanwhile, based on the SBA report, the city’s Working Group has adopted a matrix of 20 categories to refine the 24 potential sites down to three for more detailed review. As someone who has managed many facilities siting processes, I can tell you that a review based on 20 criteria is likely to be vacuous. Such a review offers the impression of precision, but can simply be a way to justify the pre-ordained desires of the project proponent.
Let’s start over before we fritter away time and money in what will turn out to be a classic case of “mission creep.”
Paul Levy, 69, lives on Oxford Road in Newton Center. He chaired the City’s Blue Ribbon Commission for Financial Resources, in 2006-7.
Thank you.
Do we have a total of all the architectural fees, planning fees and consulting fees that the city has spent in the last two years to “vision” all these new places and spaces? Has anyone looked at how much Newton spends on planning compared to other comparable cities?
Paul,
Very good critique of this ongoing Senior Center building process.
Thank you for writing about this problem. Our city has a wide
range of senior needs. One big center which meets all these needs at one location may be unrealistic.
Perhaps a center which simply addresses several basic services
maybe a more manageable and less costly solution.
Paul Levy – Thank you for outlining how we got to this point in the process for this project. I’m typically well informed about civic affairs, the work of the city council, etc. but heard nothing about the expansion of the senior center to a community center until this past April when I read about it in a P & S agenda.
As I learned more, I became quite alarmed that the council was going along with the project, with few objections other than the number of sites being considered. My questions: why are we replacing the current senior center in this way and is having one large center the best way to provide broad based senior services?
To this day, only two of the 24 city councilors have publicly questioned the scope and/or process of the project. Does that mean the 22 others support it? I have no idea and other than Cote and Auchincloss, no one seems to have much to say about it. Typically a new project of this size and scope generates a lot of discussion, but for some reason this one hasn’t. I find that odd.
I agree with Paul – start over, with a focus on developing a plan for a project that has community buy-in and a funding mechanism that doesn’t depend on the operating budget.
The proposal to use open space or recreation facilities for new building proposals seems always to be our starting point, from which we then retreat when neighbors and constituencies that use them mobilize. We’ve been through this before and it’s surprising to see it repeated now. This is especially true for a project of this type, which will require broad support within the community. Alienating open space advocates, youth sports leagues and others doesn’t seem like a winning approach. It also runs counter to the project’s stated purpose to provide space for intergenerational programming. One of the goals of an age-friendly community is to foster age integration, not to pit the interests of one age group against others. Design and approval of a new center should follow the values we have promoted and wish to adopt as a livable community for all ages.
The share of our community over age 60 is now larger than that under 20, and still growing. Schools and other facilities intended to serve the needs of younger people are distributed throughout the city. Why should we expect the needs of people at the other end of the age spectrum to be met by a single facility? We currently offer programs for older residents at several facilities, many of which are in dire need of renovation. Why not see this process as a way to upgrade those facilities so they can better serve the needs of all residents? We do need a proper place to provide specialized services for older people who need them, but the majority of older residents are looking for ways to stay connected, not to retreat to an age segregated facility. That’s why a small sliver of older adults use the current senior center. A big, new, one-size-fits-all building not only misses this point but it also ignores the best practice of communities that have adopted a new model for program and service delivery, bringing people together regardless of age, not because of age.
I still maintain that combining this with a site already in use makes sense. For instance, next to Gath Pool. Or the YMCA.
Before folks get riled up about the sanctity of the fields of gold next to the Gath pool, I think you could build up on the field house and locker rooms rather easily. And those facilities get a much needed upgrade. And the seniors now get easier access to a pool and fields.
In general I feel we aren’t always logical about of city parks. There is a strong component of folks who will RALLY RALLY RALLY to prevent any change to green space, but are remarkable silent about making those parks better for everyday users. And if making those parks better requires building ANYTHING new on said park, folks start to chant Joni Mitchell’s Big Yellow Taxi in meetings and discussions seem to end. So we wind up with preserved parks that are underused, under maintained, and frankly stuck in the ideas of parks from 50 years ago.
We still have no splash park in Newton for instance. The playground equipment is unimaginative and rarely updated. The grass and fields are not maintained. The changing areas and bathrooms aren’t maintained for pools/lakes.
My understanding for instance with the new Cabot school the school playground is on the small side, since Parks/Rec couldn’t figure out how to better utilize park space to build a larger playground, with say a basketball half court, or a gaga pit. Angier has both. Cabot doesn’t. Not only is that a shame, but it highlights the frustration. We certainly lowered the concrete flattop, but those facilities would have been used everyday by hundreds of kids. Not too many kids play pick-up baseball or softball anymore (and we could have kept both fields easily anyway).
I certainly see more folks talking about a possible use for the center on such space than I ever see talking about making those parks better. And because of my kids and my job I see playgrounds and parks all over the Commonwealth. Newton’s just aren’t that good. Full Stop. Even our rehabbed playgrounds are rather boring. Angier is the best of the new by far.
We can do better. And keep the above in mind when you rant about new uses for the parks. Perhaps creative thinking is called for here.
@fignewtonville, I didn’t see any of the comments here or the previous post as ranting. Concern, yes, in that an open space once gone tends to be gone forever. So before one is converted to a nonrecreational or non-open space purpose, let’s make sure there is a sensible process for determining what that use is and why it is a higher priority. That task, as noted above, simply has not occurred for the senior center. The cart is certainly in front of the horse in this instance.
But your points about inadequate park and fields maintenance are definitely correct. A recent survey of the soccer fields, for example, resulted in a grade of “F,” in terms of the fundamental characteristics of a good and safe playing field. The mayor added a bit of money in her budget for field maintenance, but it is a small fraction of the amount needed for the purpose. As someone, like you, who sees a lot of the fields in surrounding communities, I’ll tell you that ours are at the bottom of the heap now. Not so long ago, they were among the best, in part because the City followed through on a partnership with the soccer leagues to jointly pay to refurbish and maintain them.
@fignewtonville
Albemarle park is underused? You’re completely uninformed. The playground was recently redone for the second time in 30 years. The fields get use all spring, summer and fall, t-ball and little league,into the evening with lighted softball, soccer, and football. The fireworks are done there. It’s one of the most used parks in the city.
I believe this is another ploy to sell off the old senior center to the mayor’s developer friends for another mixed use development in Newtonville. And to award a big juicy new contract to build a….gym with bleachers?
Is Nike coming out with a new basketball shoe for seniors? ( now that I’m over 60 I feel I can joke about that).
Let’s not sacrifice any more plants for buildings either, especially trees given their important role in reducing CO2
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/17/world/trillion-trees-climate-change-intl-scn/index.html
Fig, you are totally on the mark about Newton park and recreation facilities, from Gath Pool to splash parks to the general level of upkeep. For a community that prides itself in its schools and community life, the lack of investment (be it financial or attention) in our parks is beyond surprising.
We know that our city and region faces issues of inequality, affordability, and growing social isolation. Government can help some, but its levers are limited. What it can do is support our “common wealth”: civic institutions where everyone – everyone – is welcome to come together. Newton’s neighborhood school and village models mean that great places can be close to every home, so a park or playground is only a short walk, a few minutes, away.
We are squandering this opportunity.
And to preempt a predictable response, Newton has wonderful public spaces. We just haven’t challenged ourselves to invest in them, maintain them to greatness, reinvent them, and improve them to meet the needs of everyone as the core of our “Garden City” community. We shirk our duty to present and future citizens of Newton by failing to maintain the high standards of those who came before us.
No splash parks? Really? How is that possible? Want to take a toddler and an older kid to Gath pool and keep tabs on both of them? Go out to the sidewalk and walk around. Really? Want a great recreational pool for whole families? Go to DCR Connors Pool. For free.
With seemingly every child in Newton playing soccer or little league, how is is possible that our fields are not at least borderline awesome?
Worried about more impermeable surfaces? How about we stop saying “no we can’t” and try to build recreational facilities using new, lower impact materials and technologies?
While my examples are kid-centric, we can come up with the same list of lost opportunities for adults of every age.
How can non-ADA compliant and ugly bridges across Cheesecake Brook go decades without replacement? Doesn’t July 4th at Albemarle Field remind people about this problem at least once a year?
How is “excellence in recreational and open spaces” not a core plank for political candidates in Newton?
Working together we can lead and establish best practices for the region. At each other’s ideological throats, we dither. And dither. Kids grow up, people grow old, neighbors move away, nothing changes.
Councilors Cote and Auchincloss are proposing increased programming in distributed, existing sites rather than in one huge multi-million dollar facility that takes up park space.
When I was in China, I was amazed by the large public park by the Temple of Heaven that was teeming with hundreds of seniors participating every day in over a dozen various activities including outdoor tai chi, ballroom dancing, line dancing, stretching exercises, board games. etc. Most of the activities seemed to be organized and run by the seniors themselves. None of them required special facilities, though they did set up a very nice “playground” with stretching and outdoor exercise equipment.
Obviously, this wouldn’t work year-round in Newton, but it could be great for the warmer months.
Paul, I wasn’t at all trying to imply the comments above or in the other thread were ranting. But I’ve attended my fair share of Parks and Rec meetings in Newton for things in Newtonville mostly. And man, unless it involves a possible change of park use or increasing the size of a parking lot, not much attention gets paid. But man do we get passionate about change of use/parking issues. Some of the members of our community get very angry and engaged regarding those issues (from personal experience) but have no plans or care for the actual use of the parks. Open space for the goal of open space itself is just a small part of what the Parks should be about.
Rick, I’m not misinformed at all. I’m a very heavy park user. I was at Albemarle last week, and at the Gath this week. I think you read what you wanted to read in my post. First, look at Albemarle as a whole. It is a huge park site. It is actually the most used park site in the city, so to pick out Albemarle to disprove my point that our parks are underused is cherry picking and doesn’t address my larger point at all. Have you been to the other sites? I have. All of them. Every single one. So many times I’ve lost count. We can go site by site, but trust me, many are underused and under maintained.
But lets address your point about Albemarle. The playground was, for 10 years, in need of repair. It took a decade. My kids got splinters and cuts a decade ago on that playground equipment. So kudos to new equipment. But let’s not ignore the history of disrepair, or the fact that the city didn’t fund the rehab in full (right?). The sports fields are certainly used at Albemarle, and the lights help. But there are so many things wrong with the site as a whole. The fields are in disrepair. There are major dead areas in the grass, spots for shade trees that have died and not been replaced, the Gath pool changing rooms are a joke, there is no way to connect the toddler baby area with the pool, the hours and time open for the pool are the worst in the area, and the whole place closes down in September from my recollection.
Hey, I’m not advocating for open space becoming an elementary school, or being sold for parts. I’ll fight tooth and nail for the current senior center to remain a public use and not be redeveloped. But when it comes to our parks, Newton doesn’t get the funding, it doesn’t replace the equipment, it isn’t imaginative with the uses, and it basically has been stuck in the same rut for as long as I’ve been in this fair city. There was a massive opportunity to improve Cabot Park when the Cabot school got rebuilt. And from what I can see, nothing was done.
We’ve had a decades long mismanagement of our roads, our public buildings and our open space. Don’t we all agree that the public buildings had many years of delayed maintenance? Our roads and sidewalks are still behind? I think the last two administrations have been better about this, and this is not a personal attack on the folks at Parks and Rec, who I’m sure work hard with limited resources. But the city should be leading on this.
I’d be in support of an override that combined the senior center, faster road improvements, additional tree planting, village improvements and a major update to all of our parks. And I challenge our Council to visit the parks in our neighboring cities, to compare the roads, to compare the gardens and city centers, and then to report back.
Speaking of playground equipment, as I understand it, most playground equipment on school property is paid for by PTOs, even though they serve as parks. I don’t know how Albemarle playground was funded.
It will be interesting to hear how the school PTO equity issue affects playgrounds. The current situation is a double whammy: schools with limited ability to fundraise might have more poorly-equipped playgrounds in their neighborhood parks.
In the future, will Newton be funding Parks and Rec more to pay for playground equipment, since PTOs will be limited?
@Mike Halle – the playground (the one with the splinters) before the current was a project spearheaded by Margaret Albright. I believe it was done either through the PTO and/or private donations. I know I donated money towards it. My son I think was at the Horace Mann school at that time. My daughter played on the “steel death” playground before that one when she went to Horace Mann. @fignewtonville – you think splinters are bad? We thought for sure someone would get killed on the steel geodesic dome. We actually kind of liked that because it was “riskier” but that another story. (are kids too coddled today etc.) The Cabot playground back then was also a nightmare of steel bars and bare dirt.
All this stuff costs money. And with all the safety specialty stuff even more.
Rick:
Completely agree it costs money. But why is the PTO/private donations doing the lion’s share? Because folks know if they wait for the city to get organized, put it in a budget, and do the work their kids will have kids of their own…
So there are three things here:
1) Current state of many playgrounds/fields need to be improved. Just to hold the line of unsafe and older equipment and bad fields.
2) I’m also stating that our current uses for parks is not what it should be. There are some amazing parks out there for kids in MA. Let’s explore how we can improve each park and increase the use of each park.
3) We’ve moved away from the purpose of this thread. But a possible improvement to a park *could* be a senior/community center, if it improved the OVERALL park as a whole. Putting a gym on parkland for instance allows for 12 month usage at the site. Despite loss of some green space, that’s an overall win in my book, if it is sited correctly. We don’t have to take over a field, there are unused spots in many parks that could function as a possible site.
Overall, I agree with Paul that we should do a hard look at the mission/purpose. My original comment on the state of our parks was based on the usual reaction of folks regarding any change of use at a park site. But there should be room for rational thought and discussion regarding both the mission/purpose of the NewCal and the mission/purpose of our parks if the siting of NewCal could be on park space.
Your have to have a budget for heating, maintenance, etc. of this building.
From the size of it, it would require quite a bit of staff.
The Boys and Girls club is already there ( next to HoMann) and has a gym.
The YMCA is at the other end of Washington Street. I’m not sure we need a city run place for indoor sports with all the associated expenses. Plus there’s Day middle school. My kids played indoor sports at all those places.
And correction. It was Margaret Doris-Pierce who championed the wooden playground.
I think it’s really awful that PTOs are responsible for the school playgrounds. They’re really expensive! Even small jobs like painting lines on basketball courts require a lot of fundraising. There has to be a better way.
@Figgy, your analysis of the inattention to parks, roads, etc. encapsulates the ineptitude of this city council and this administration. Rather than making city services world class, they’re focused on solving national, regional and global issues like climate change, nuclear disarmament, regional housing shortages, etc. These are all important issues, but they are also issues best addressed by our state and national government. Our municipal government should primarily focus on efficiently meeting the city’s needs.
For the posters who diverted attention away from Paul Levy’s question as to whether the city should start over with the NEWCal project: please reread his thread, go to his links, and find out about how this project was conceived, the plan for paying for it.
If you’re really concerned about upgrading the parks and fields, you might want to get up to speed about what’s involved in NEWCal and how it has become a perfect example of “mission creep”.
Jane, while I plead guilty for my part in sidetracking this thread, the conversation actually isn’t that far afield. Parks and recreation are at least a part of the laudable dream of NEWCal. It just turns out our recent track record on maintaining our current assets for everyone, including seniors, is less than stellar.
One way to correct a deficit is to build something new. That’s a natural impulse, and sometimes necessary. Fixing what we’ve got and making it awesome is less glamorous but often more effective. I claim it’s more immune to mission creep through its incrementalism.
This thought process points to Councilor Cote’s suggestion of building up more distributed senior services. I differ with the Councilor, though, when he says that seniors helped pay for the schools override and now deserve their turn. I’m not sure most long-term Newton residents think that way, expecting their slice of pie. I think we’re stronger when we think of us all together first, then make sure we pay attention to more specific needs.
That approach suggests we look at our existing facilities and services that serve everyone including seniors, solidify them, make sure that previously neglected voices are heard during the process (e.g., where can physical accessibility be improved? where can we find more flexible community space?). After we’ve planned that, let’s make sure that specific needs of seniors are also addressed (which could be city-wide or more local to villages).
@Sarah,
Seems to me our NATIONAL government doesn’t even admit to climate change and, in fact, has been busy undoing all the progress that has been made to date. I hope you’re not suggesting we defer to them! We are going to start right here at home, where we have control over what we do. I applaud our city councilors who are addressing that, who have been addressing that, and looking to what we, on a local level, can do to make a difference, which is significant. I applaud our Climate Action Plan and the experts in energy who spent their time doing in-depth analyses to determine what we can do right here in Newton right now to make a difference here at home – and eventually beyond. And in many cases, such as with requiring solar and passive house on new commercial construction, we are way ahead of the State and need to be putting pressure on them to tighten up their legislation and standards. Furthermore, our State reps gets their lead from us, here in Newton. No better place to start than to message them that we care about these issues and when we consider new projects, we’re going to consider them in light of the goals we established, which is 80% reduction in carbon output by 2050.
And now back to NewCAL and how it got out of hand…. and how to get it back to something more realistic budget-wise and in terms of our climate goals…
Paul,
I appreciate your hard work on this project. You have made some strong statements about the process, and what has and hasn’t happened to date. I therefore took some time and read the material that you provided links for, and a great deal more that was available by reading meeting minutes and listening to audio(CC meetings) from the close to 40 public meetings on this project. I appears there is way more work that has been done than this blog or the community meeting presentations alone would suggest. Since you are following this project so closely, can you share with us some of your observations from any of the ~40 listening sessions, Dialog with the Director meetings, Community meetings, Council on Aging meetings, Executive Building Committee meetings, Advisory Building Committee meetings, and City Council meetings? It was very obvious from reading about this project that a great deal of community outreach and input has occurred, and that public Q&A has been welcomed and has occurred at a ton of meetings. I’m just curious, did you attend any of these meetings? If so, did you ask any of these questions and what was the response? If not, did you reach out to any of the community members, city staff, or elected officials to ask any questions along the way? If so, what was their response?
The following is not direct to Paul.
What proposed design elements are not for seniors? I’ve heard people say the gym, but it seems very ageist to suggest that nobody over the age of 55 would use a gym. Even in the presentations Paul provided, there is a clear demand in the notes for active senior recreational programming that would be served in a gym. Pickleball, basketball, badminton, volleyball, etc. The proposed gym for NewCAL includes a walking track above. Treadmills can present significant safety risks for some seniors with mobility impairments, but a walking track can provide a safe indoor environment where seniors can stay mobile. We all know the health benefits of walking at any age, but as you enter your senior years the benefits of maintaining muscle mass, balance, and cardio become so much more important. The rest of the proposed spaces all seem very reasonable, and in my mind are just taking the types of spaces the seniors currently have and sizing them appropriately based on a variety of factors.
It was also clear that there has been discussion of existing facilities throughout Newton. No surprise, but gyms are in very high demand. The existing Senior Center is way too small, there is very little parking, and the site could not realistically accommodate the program even without the gym. I also found it interesting that Senior Programming is already being offered throughout the City. The Hyde Community Center, Albemarle Field House, Newton Centre Hut, Lower Falls and Upper Falls Community Centers, etc. Apparently they have analyzed all of this, and have committed to continuing the practice of offering senior programs throughout the city at these facilities, but even with those buildings, they are out of space during the times where demand exists. It also appears that a major priority in having a central facility is services. While active recreational programs could be more mobile, social services for senior needs to be more centrally located or at least have a home base of operations. Senior Services is a relatively small department with limited staff resources. To further decentralize the department would require a significant increase in staffing to provide these services, and supervision and leadership would also require additional resources to manage this structure. It also appears that the lack of a central location is not desirable because without an appropriately sized, barrier free, accessible central location, many seniors could feel the barriers are too great to overcome and then utilize the facility. Decentralizing it completely could be even more of a barrier, as an itinerary and personal transportation plan would be needed to visit multiple locations to partake in all of the programs and services provided.
Seniors make up more than 25% of the population of Newton. There are almost twice as many seniors in Newton as there are students in our schools. We have 24 schools. Many, if not most, of the seniors in Newton have paid taxes to build schools, parks, and other infrastructure for many decades. It was clear from what I read and listened to that seniors do feel like they are worth the investment, and that the investment is needed, and that it is their turn.
I believe that Paul’s blogs, and many of the comments, are really a reaction to the potential use of parkland for this project. While I too don’t want to see us sacrifice open space, I am certainly willing to keep an open mind to allowing the process to unfold, to see if a solution shakes out that everyone can support and even be proud of. In the last meeting of the Finance Committee, it was made clear that the project is not expending further building design money until the siting questions are answered or at least clarified publicly. It was also made clear that if a park site was suggested as the preferred site, it could only move forward with the support of the community, Parks and Recreation Commission, and City Council. I for one, am patient and open-minded enough to let the public process play out before passing judgement.
Thanks, Randy, for those thoughts. I based my review on the documents included in the project website, which summarized all those other sessions, and upon which our public officials are relying. The elected officials with whom I have talked have strong reservations about this project, putting it in the category of “nice to have” but not “need to have.” They also agree with my characterization of the process to date, i.e., one that is additive rather than selective. Finally, there is strong opposition to the use of open space and parkland.
Regarding your point: “In the last meeting of the Finance Committee, it was made clear that the project is not expending further building design money until the siting questions are answered or at least clarified publicly.” As I noted, this is putting the cart before the horse. You don’t resolve siting questions before you resolve programmatic questions. And, as I have noted, the method to be employed for “resolving the siting question,” is in itself terribly flawed.
Finally, with regard to this argument that “it is their turn” for seniors, that suggests that they, as members of the community, have not benefited from previous investments in schools, parks, roads, and the like. Of course, that’s not the case. We all benefit from city infrastructure and enhancements, indirectly in the value of our properties and the overall quality of life, but directly as we go through the phases of our lives and make use of those investments. (For example, those seniors were also parents of school children in the past.) In any event, no one I know is arguing that the city cannot or should not provide useful facilities and services to seniors. The issues are what, how, where, and at what cost.
I don’t understand her entitlement mentality that’s being espoused by some commenters. Education of our children is a law and a smart investment, entertaining seniors is not. While 25% of our population may be seniors, 75% is not. I’m expected to pay for a gym membership why should my tax dollars fund a free gym for seniors?
To say that seniors invested in the community and have paid for this right is laughable. New home owners who purchase home from seniors often end up paying significantly more taxes once the home is reassessed at the new purchase price. Also the reason this town is so desirable is the proximity to Boston and jobs which the seniors had nothing to do with.
It seems as though our mayor is pandering to the reliable senior voting block, wby else have all these new initiatives been proposed? (New no, Newcal)
Why did the city not put a budget for this before starting the planning process? Every projects needs constraints. Without that, of course people are going to “vision” a multi-million dollar facility requiring 2.5 acres.
Randy – How were the listening sessions advertised? Was it just on the city website? Did you attend one and if so, how did you find out about it, outside of the website? As an active resident, I would definitely have attended one if it had been adequately well advertised. As it is, when I expressed serious reservations about the “needs/wants” issue and its scope, I was told – twice – that I opposed senior services. I am a senior, for goodness sakes! Nothing could be further from the truth. My personal experience leads me to ask whether those who questioned the scope of the project were well received.
I’m in no way questioning the hard work of the working group, or their good intentions and commitment to the development of a solution to a new senior center. They could have had a 100 meetings and still come up with a project that is beyond the scope of broader community needs and support. As for the “wants” or “wish list” discussion, the city is not in that territory according to all discussions of the budget according to all accounts from virtually every elected official.
There was a point after the plans were proposed – and before the requests for substantial amounts of money – that the broader community should have been included into the process with detailed information about the scope of the project publicized. As I’ve mentioned, I found out about it by reading a P & S agenda, then asking some questions. Only in the last few weeks has there been any public discussion about this project about the wisdom of proceeding down this route – months after a request for $400,000 for the first level of planning. That’s not how you build community support for a major capital project.
Agreed. And also, why no notification to the neighborhoods about the 24 potential sites under consideration? That surely would have happened for any other city facility under consideration.
I spent some time looking at all the materials on the city website, and couldn’t find any justification for the “requirement” of a 2.5 acre site. That seems overly large to me.
A 40,000 square foot building needs only half an acre if it has two floors. 75 parking spaces (another “requirement” I’m not so sure of in the era of ride-sharing) would take up between half and 3/4ths of an acre, depending on how generously it is landscaped. That adds up to between 1 and 1.25 acres. Why is 2.5 acres needed?
It seems to me it is misguided to think of a senior center in this day and age. I would hope in our search for community we would be inclusive with whatever center we build so that generations can co-mingle in activities and the stigma of aging can be eradicated. I hope this whole project can be revisited and the name and concept of a single generation SENIOR CENTER be replaced.
Carol – I completely agree that we don’t want to isolate seniors. Most likely, I’d never use a senior center, but would hate to lose it for those who appreciate and prefer a designated place to go to meet same-generation friends and acquaintances. Having a senior center doesn’t prevent anyone from co-mingling with people of other ages – it merely provides a space for those who may want it or may be having difficulty connecting with other seniors.
The Y, the JCC, the Newton Free Library, and Crystal Lake are excellent examples of existing community centers that allow for intergenerational mingling.
@Jane,
Yes, and the Y is relatively devoid of ages other than “senior” during the day, because anybody else is in school. Keeping up with equipment, people to mind the use of the equipment, is in itself a full-time job. I personally enjoy going to the Y and seeing people of all ages there. It’s heartening to see the seniors working out, doing strength training, and whatever else, both inside the gym and outside on the track. And I’m a senior, too. I’m inspired to see what others my age and older are doing and can do.
And speaking of the Library, didn’t they just get $500K to freshen up?
Some creative eye could expand the current senior center, include some satellite locations, with an eye on acknowledging our climate action goals.
Speaking of mission creep, I just picked up a flyer tonight put out by Newton Parks & Recreation: Active Adults, 55+ Programs. It’s a 4-page full color flyer. The activities are amazing. And they take place at various locations through out the city such as Gath Pool, Hawthorne Gym (First time I’ve heard of this place), Forte Point Park on California St., Cabot Field, Newton Comm. Golf Course, Lower Falls Community Center (Did I even know there was such a place?) Warren House (again, where is this????) Albemarle Fieldhouse, Nonantum Boxing Club, The Hut (How many of you know where this is located?) and Scandinavian Living Center, and more.
Here’s my point: There’s already so much going on, such variety of activities, so many satellite centers that are conveniently located in our villages, but I think we as a city should build on this.
How about renovating “The Hut?” It’s entrance is forbidding. It looks totally abandoned. The Albemarle Field House? Have your yoga and Tai Chi classes in a place that’s actually comfortable to be in, and is conveniently located for residents of Nontantum and other villages. Renovating these existing places (and this includes improving the roads and sidewalks that bring people to and from the Albermarle Field House and The Hut) would be a great use of resources, and would cater well to a population that is spread out all over our village centers.