Mayor Fuller: NewCAL site narrowed to six locations

by Gail Spector | Aug 1, 2019 | NewCAL, Ruthanne Fuller, seniors | 102 comments

Mayor Ruthanne Fuller wrote in a memo today that the NewCAL Working Group, which is working on identifying a site for a new Senior Center, has narrowed the list of possibilities from 24 to six:

Albemarle Playground/Field (on Albemarle Road in West Newton)
Cabot Park (probably on the northern portion of the site near Newtonville Avenue and East Side Parkway in Newtonville)
McGrath Park (behind Warren House on Washington Street in West Newton)
Newton Centre Playground (on Tyler Terrace where the Jeannette West Recreation Center (aka “The Hut”) is located in Newton Centre)
Pelligrini Playground (on Hawthorne Street just off Watertown Street in Nonantum)
Weeks Playground (off Centre Street in Newton Centre)

Here’s the full memo to the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, Council on Aging, and members of the NewCALAdvisory Building Committee and Working Group:

MEMORANDUM

DATE: August 1, 2019

TO: City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, Council on Aging, and members of the NewCALAdvisory Building Committee and Working Group

FROM: Mayor Ruthanne Fuller

RE: NewCAL Project Update

CC: Jayne Colino, Robert DeRubeis, Barney Health, Josh Morse, Jonathan Yeo

Why are we building a Newton Center for Active Living (NewCAL)?

Working together, our goal is to make Newton an even better place for our older residents. Notably, the City of Newton’s senior population is the fastest growing group of residents. By 2030, the projections show that 1 out of every 3 Newtonians will be age 60 or older. Even now, Newton has the 5th largest senior population in the Commonwealth. This poses a great challenge and opportunity for us. The Department of Senior Services and the Newton Council on Aging has been leading a comprehensive community process for a number of years to ensure that as people in Newton age and their abilities change, they have easy access to services, amenities, and opportunities.

One of the key concerns has been the woefully inadequate Senior Center at 345 Walnut Street in Newtonville. Built in the 1930s as a branch library, it is too small and badly laid out to meet the needs of Newton’s seniors. Many seniors are on waiting lists for classes and programs, and there are many opportunities Director Jayne Colino and her staff simply can’t offer because there is no space available. Furniture has to literally be moved out of the way daily to make room for the Zumba class and other gatherings. In addition, the spaces in the basement lack natural light, there’s little parking and virtually no outdoor space.

We value, respect, engage and include seniors in all aspects of community. We proudly say we are an age-friendly City. Bricks and mortar are a reflection of our values, and the current Senior Center doesn’t reflect Newton’s values.

In June 2018, Newton launched a process to develop new space for senior activities. NewCAL, an acronym that stands for Newton Center for Active Living, is the working name for the process.

Where are we on site locations?

The day before yesterday, the NewCAL Working Group narrowed the list of potential locations for the project to six City-owned locations. The NewCAL working group includes a number of members of the Council on Aging and Parks and Recreation Commission, members of the senior and parks, recreation and culture communities, two City Councilors, and leaders from Senior Services, Parks, Recreation and Culture and other City departments.

These six locations were selected after considerable study. The Working Group’s original list included more than 145 privately owned and City parcels all across the City. The list was first whittled down to 24 locations in May when parcels that were too small or had insurmountable hurdles were eliminated.

The next phase of the analysis looked at NewCAL’s impact on each of the 24 sites, the impact of the site on NewCAL, as well as legal restrictions. The NewCAL Working Group conducted an analysis that included fifteen weighted criteria and resulted in six potential sites, all City-owned:

Albemarle Playground/Field (on Albemarle Road in West Newton)
Cabot Park (probably on the northern portion of the site near Newtonville Avenue and East Side Parkway in Newtonville)
McGrath Park (behind Warren House on Washington Street in West Newton)
Newton Centre Playground (on Tyler Terrace where the Jeannette West Recreation Center (aka “The Hut”) is located in Newton Centre)
Pelligrini Playground (on Hawthorne Street just off Watertown Street in Nonantum)
Weeks Playground (off Centre Street in Newton Centre)

The Working Group as well as the Park and Recreation Commission will now thoughtfully and thoroughly analyze each of these sites to consider not just whether the location works for NewCAL but also the impacts of NewCAL on current important uses and open space and the neighborhood around each site. Many others will be involved in the decision, including the City Council, Council on Aging and residents.

Although we are focusing our attention on these six sites, we are also continuing to search for, and analyze, non-City owned parcels as well.

What’s the mission of NewCAL and is it exclusively a Senior Center?

The first task of the NewCAL Working Group and Advisory Committees, working with the Council on Aging, was to develop a vision for NewCAL. The Vision Statement focuses on NewCAL as meeting the unique interests and needs of older adults while providing opportunities for all residents of Newton when space is available.

NewCAL Vision Statement (December 2018)

The City of Newton’s goal, as an age friendly community, is to build a large, well equipped, comfortable Center to meet the unique interests and needs of older adults, both those currently using the Senior Center and many others who are not. The Center will foster a special sense of community and belonging for this growing group. This facility will be designed to optimize the quality of life for Newton’s older adults and those who support them, through welcoming, respectful and meaningful opportunities that engage, value, and empower older adults to remain independent and important assets in our community.

When spaces within this facility are not programmed for older adults, the goal is to offer well managed, quality and enriching community and multigenerational experiences for all residents of Newton.

The NewCAL committees developed additional principles to guide the design. The Center will be designed to promote and support the missions of the Senior Services and Parks, Recreation and Culture Departments.

Senior Services Department Mission Statement: ”To optimize quality of life for older adults and those who support them through the welcoming, respectful and meaningful opportunities that engage and value older people, and empower them to remain independent and to be important assets in our community.”

Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Mission Statement: “The Newton Parks and Recreation Department will provide traditional and innovative recreation, leisure and cultural activities in a quality environment for all residents of Newton, as well as managing the preservation, maintenance, and enhancement of the natural resources of the City.”

Spaces within the facility will be clustered and programmed to preserve the wonderful sense of community that exists in the current Senior Center. The Center will be age friendly, welcoming to everyone, and will be designed and programmed to meet the unique needs of seniors as well as the broader community. The Center will ensure safety and accessibility both inside and outside through thoughtful design and operation. The Center will promote social equality and maximize access to programs and services to those who are unserved or underserved. The facility will be environmentally conscious, strive to be carbon neutral, and will leave a legacy of responsible design and operation.

How is the building going to be used? In architecture terms, what is the “program” for the building?

The City’s design team, working in detail with many departments (Senior Services; Parks, Recreation & Culture; Library; Newton Community Education; and others) and the Working Group, spent a year ascertaining the “program” – What is needed to meet the needs of our older residents? They initially considered whether a large, centralized building was even necessary or whether the activities could be spread out across the City in existing or potentially new/renovated spaces. There was strong consensus among seniors and the Senior Services staff for a central community space with continued programs offered in facilities across the City.

The committees then developed the facility program – defined as the number and size of rooms and interior/exterior spaces needed within the NewCAL building. The program plan took into consideration the current program run by Senior Services at the existing Senior Center on Walnut Street as well as additional spaces currently needed for senior programs run by other departments, including Parks, Recreation and Culture, as well as future needs.

The work led to a total area for the facility of approximately 37,000 square feet which includes a 10,000 square foot gymnasium and 27,000 square feet of other spaces. (The current Senior Center which does not have a gym is 10,000 square feet.) The program calls for 13 multi-purpose activity rooms of different sizes available for classes, active recreation (e.g. yoga, Zumba, billiards and pingpong), a library and reading room, art, dining, performance, and function space. The gym is sized for multiple activities including pickleball, badminton, basketball, volleyball, yoga, dance, special events, and performances. Above the gym is an elevated walking track, which has been enormously popular in other communities for four-season use. Common spaces include a lobby, cultural and art display spaces, a Newton Free Library pick-up and drop-off area, and a store. A kitchen and café will be centrally-located on the first floor. NewCAL will also house several offices for providing services to seniors including a health room, social work space, and senior program volunteer-led space.

The Budget and Capital Improvement Plan for the building is $16 million (and does not include any potential acquisition costs).

Who has been involved?

The project has benefitted from heavy involvement by the Council on Aging, the Parks & Recreation Commission, two City Councilors, as well as the Senior Services, Parks, Recreation and Culture, Public Buildings, Planning Department and the Accessibility Coordinator. There have been 35 public meetings. The team has visited more than ten other senior and community centers to see spaces, programs, design elements, site challenges and parking needs. We have reached out to other communities for “lessons learned” as they developed senior centers and community centers.

There is an upcoming NewCAL community meeting on Thursday September 19 at 7 pm in Room 111 of the Education Center at 100 Walnut Street. Information about the meeting and the project are available on the NewCAL website at: https://newcal.projects.nv5.com

102 Comments

Paul Levy on August 2, 2019 at 6:21 am
This is a dramatically flawed process, as I have indicated in previous posts. More to come on that front.
In the meantime, I want to point out that it is misleading to call Weeks in particular a “playground,” which conjures up an image of a built pad with all sorts of structures on it. This appears to be an intentional Orwellian name change to minimize perception of the site from the Weeks Park nomenclature on the P&R website (http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/parks/city/weeks.asp). Weeks Park is a field with trees and open spaces (and yes, a tiny tot-lot), one that is regularly used by several thousand people, town youth leagues, the Newton South high school, as well as several other nearby schools and preschoolers. Over the years, it has received hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations in landscaping, irrigation, and field maintenance from the boys and girls soccer leagues. For years, too, the neighbors have donated thousands of hours in support of park cleanup and maintenance. A 38,000 square foot building on a 2.5 acre site would dwarf the tiny playground, and take up over 20% of that park.
More generally, with an acknowledged shortage of playing fields in the city, the use of Weeks, McGrath, and Albemarle or other open spaces would be detrimental to both the youth and adult leagues and the high school sports programs.
If you’d like to read more, please see https://village14.com/2019/07/03/slow-down-on-newcal/#axzz5vJ8EZDVN and
https://village14.com/2019/07/08/mission-creep-at-newcal/#axzz5vJ8EZDVN.
Paul Levy on August 2, 2019 at 6:37 am
By the way, the Working Group’s own document states that the gymnasium represents 14,000 square feet, not 10,000, complete with retractable bleachers, along with showers and dressing rooms. Why does the Mayor here and, earlier, her Building Commissioner in front of the City Council choose to misrepresent this element? It is a third of the proposed total facility, leading in part to the need for the expansive 2.5 acres being sought. The idea of the gym was suggested by fewer than a dozen people during the scoping process, and yet it was incorporated in the program plan.
Also still pending is the idea of another swimming pool if there is space available on the chosen site. So 2.5 acres can quickly expand to something more.
There are simply no controls, financial or programmatic, on this proposal.
Hal Green on August 2, 2019 at 7:09 am
Weeks fields should not be changed in any way.
It is a regularly utilized oasis of beautiful greenery in the “Garden City”
and would be very unfortunate to lose any of it’s space to buildings.
Whether it starts as 10 or 20% of proposed development, in future years – this would inevitably become aggravated by further urban congestion.
Danny Sands on August 2, 2019 at 7:54 am
I have enjoyed living in Newton for almost 30 years. While building a new senior center for Newton is an excellent idea, we have to weigh that against competing priorities such as the need to provide playing fields for our burgeoning soccer, lacrosse, and other sports programs. My daughters participated in Newton Girls Soccer and I coached them. On many days it was difficult to find playing fields that could accommodate all the games and practice sessions. Weeks Field, in particular, is often filled to capacity with games and practices. I feel it would be a grievous error to reduce this space by 1/5 to accommodate this project.
I also support the arguments put forth by Paul Levy, who also has an intimate knowledge of the Newton soccer programs and their needs.
Rick Frank on August 2, 2019 at 7:58 am
I agree. As a 61 year old near “senior”, I see no need for such a large structure. Let the kids keep their ball fields, and keep the open space.
Farzana Mohamed on August 2, 2019 at 9:02 am
I am dismayed that the city continues to persist in its exploration of park spaces and open lands for this project. These are valuable resources for the community, and once green space is taken over, it never returns. Furthermore, the potential taking of public parkland for this project sets a dangerous precedent for future projects that may also be deemed desirable. Anyone who cares about any of the city’s parks and recreation lands should be concerned about this topic.
To be clear, I’m in support of a well-designed, comfortable senior center. However, there should be no reason to cannibalize parks and other open spaces for this center, especially when other options are available. They may be available at a higher cost, but they are available.
Finally, on process: There are a number of irregularities with this project that give this urban planner pause:
– How was the transfer of information from the bankrupt architectural firm that produced the initial visioning transferred to the newly selected firm? What context accompanied bringing on a new architect before they launched into site selection with that blueprint as a working document?
-What has been the process for notifying people about the senior center design and working group meetings, as well as other outreach. We have a senior in our household, are active on civic and community matters, and were unaware, until the Mayor’s general update sent late last month, of meetings or outreach activities. How were people notified? Who went to the meetings? The records of the meetings are quite unclear.
-Why are we selecting a site before programming has been finalized? Why is this project being rushed through?
-What does the estimated price-tag of $16.45 million cover? If it’s just the construction cost, how will all of the interior furnishings and equipment – particularly for intensive uses such as a gym – be priced and funded? What about the cost of operating and maintaining such a facility?
-What alternatives have been explored to provide some of these envisioned services at either no- or low-cost to seniors through other existing facilities?
– Does it make sense to include a gym, when, according to the less-than-clear minutes, only a few requests have been made for one?
– At 38,000 square feet, the proposed site is substantially larger than senior centers in other nearby towns, including several that were visited by the project and architectural teams. Why?
Gerry Chervinsky on August 2, 2019 at 9:24 am
Wow, this is shockingly bad. Our second year mayor, who was elected primarily for her fiscal expertise, continues to stubbornly propose siting a facility for which there is little support on a city playground, a location for which there is no support at all, only strong opposition. Furthermore, she wants to pay for it out of the operating budget and not through a debt exclusion override approved by voters. In the meantime our streets and sidewalks are crumbling, our school employees are locked in contentious contract negotiations, over-development fears grow by the day while very little actually gets built, and the city drags its feet on rolling out cannabis stores that would bring in much needed tax revenue while other communities all around us (especially Brookline) are raking in that dough. Is it too soon to question this administration’s priorities or to wonder whether it is up to the task of appropriately governing Newton?
- Marti Bowen on August 2, 2019 at 10:25 am
  These things that Gerry pointed out are alarming.
  … our school employees are locked in contentious contract negotiations
  … the city drags its feet on rolling out cannabis stores that would bring in much needed tax revenue while other communities all around us (especially Brookline) are raking in that dough.
  Our school employees are being treated as if they are not one of the most valuable assets in Newton.
  Garden Remedies is the only cannibis store in Newton. It is being hindered by the extraneous rules imposed upon it – such as not being granted even a small parking lot. It’s cumbersome to enter – requiring entry through the front for ID verification, leaving the building, entering the side door, showing ID again – has no showroom space, has only four lines with 2 being for medical marijuana and 2 for retail, has employees who know nothing about the product and to top off the experience – has a tiny inventory. I can’t imagine it will bring in much tax revenue.
  Whereas, the retail store on Route 9 in Brookline is a consumer friendly experience with employees who know which strains solve which problems – mine is chronic back pain – and help you choose which product might help the most – for me it is the cream applied directly -, has a nice labeled display case.
  Which place do you think will add the most in taxes?
  As an aside, I went to a CBD, contains no THC, store in Delaware to try their directly applied product which works well too.
Beth Dugan on August 2, 2019 at 10:54 am
Hi, I am on the Council on Aging — posting here as an individual, not as a COA member. The complaints about process seem off to me. This has been a very deliberate, open process. There is an advisory committee (may be called something else, but the aim to get input), notice about the meetings have all been posted. If you were unaware of them, please check the Newton.gov website in the future. The agenda, minutes etc are all there, too.
I think your complaints about losing soccer fields or greenspace are reasonable and worth debate. But in my mind and experience we need a larger, functioning senior center. We have soccer fields. We do not have an adequate sr center and more than 23% of Newton is 60+. It will be normal for people to live longer, healthier, more active lives. The aging population in MA added 125,000+ people in just a few years. You can click (https://mahealthyagingcollaborative.org/wp-content/themes/mhac/pdf/community_profiles/MA_Towncode207_Newton.pdf) to see a demographic profile of Newton and the rest of the state.
Finally, I’d note that the plan is for intergenerational programming to be a part of the NewCal program. That means all ages have an interest in a great NewCal, not just older people. Intergenerational programming helps reduce ageism and benefits both generations. Hope that helps.
Terry Malloy on August 2, 2019 at 11:06 am
Let’s right an historic wrong:
Take Warren House (formerly Warren jr High) by eminent domain for NewCAL, move the seniors living there into a Korf product.
Save the fields and green space.
Julia Malakie on August 2, 2019 at 11:07 am
The NewCAL committees are not subject to the Open Meeting Law, David Olson told me, so as far as I can tell, the meetings were never posted on the Electronic Posting Board. Only the quarterly community meetings got any kind of publicity.
They did keep Minutes, though I have not been able to find them on newtonma.gov. I put Minutes through May 21, 2019 (obtained through a public records request) in a folder on Newton Tree Conservancy Google Drive here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1kgzp8Dj0xYxWzSar-K0TyD7Zpypx4GR2
I made a new request for Minutes of any meetings since May 21 on Wednesday, but received nothing additional. Apparently a June meeting was cancelled, and Minutes of the Tuesday meeting must not have been finished. I will ask again, and anyone else can ask, too. Though I wonder how much of the decisionmaking on the narrowed list was done by the Working Group or Executive Building Committee as opposed to a smaller group.
Paul Levy on August 2, 2019 at 12:19 pm
Beth, as Julie has noted, the deliberative meetings of the working group, where the decisions are made, are not open to the public. Nor are their minutes promptly available.
You’ve made some important points. Progress along the lines you suggest will be expedited by opening up the process, doing the work right, and properly balancing various important considerations.
Richard C Frank on August 2, 2019 at 1:35 pm
@Beth Dugan I’m 60+. Has your council ever asked me what I think? No. Do you have a poll of what the residents of newton who are 60+ would like?
What’s driving this besides the mayor’s desire for another photo op? I don’t get it. Nobody I know wants this, especially with taking away playgrounds and green space.
Meetings shmeetings.
Amy Sangiolo on August 2, 2019 at 1:50 pm
The NewCAL website can be found here: https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/
The link to sign up for email updates is here: https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/contact/
Pat Irwin on August 2, 2019 at 2:46 pm
Thank you, Amy. Again, it begs the question how long (or if at all) pertinent information reaches us, the stakeholders, but for you. :(
Pat Irwin on August 2, 2019 at 3:02 pm
I voted for you. I daresay had you gotten in we wouldn’t be having to deal with all these messes.
Amanda Heller on August 2, 2019 at 3:15 pm
Hands off what’s left of the Newton Centre “playground” green space, rolling parkland with what I’ve been told is an Olmsted pedigree. The “Hut,” a former church that once sat (again, I’ve been told) where my house now sits two blocks away, is across a narrow street from people’s homes. A massive senior center with the requisite parking would destroy the residential character of the block along with the landscape and all its environmental benefits. My husband and I are in our 70s, by the way, and have used the existing senior center maybe twice. The problem is not that it’s old but that it’s irrelevant. Build if you have to, but in a place that’s already smothered in asphalt. Leave the commons alone.
fignewtonville on August 2, 2019 at 3:49 pm
I continue to maintain that if designed correctly, many of our parks have space that is poorly utilized and could be used as a spot for the senior center. And Assuming the dog park could be relocated, I’d welcome the senior center on the north side of Cabot Park for instance. Especially if they put in a pool that could be used year round!
MANY sports are now played in a gym, and we have a real need for year round pool space. If this is truly for all ages, I’m not sure I understand why open space can never be touched. I’d fight tooth and nail not to have someone build an apartment building, but the north side of cabot park borders homes, a new storage facility (grrr…) and industrial uses. Or rebuild the Gath pool locker rooms, move the basketball courts, and put the senior center there!
This is a public use. I don’t think underused portions of park space should be off limits. That isn’t a blessing, just my view of the potential for a good project.
I do agree with Paul that the process has been faulty. But after some thought, I think this will end up being an asset to whatever community welcomes it.
And again, the old senior center should not be sold, but should be transitioned into nonprofit and community meeting space.
Paul on August 2, 2019 at 4:01 pm
The presumption that we need to sacrifice parkland in Newton, when we’ve been selling non-parkland to developers (with the rationale that we no longer need that space) is stunning.
We literally can’t get our of own way.
The incompetence of leadership in this City, with no ability to looks a few years in the future, is outrageous.
Laurie on August 2, 2019 at 4:24 pm
Before embarking on a $16M+ multi-generational facility, I’d like to see if other alternatives that would use distributed sites that already exist have been explored. If existing city buildings, school gyms, and multi-generational recreation sites like the YMCA, JCC, etc. are already over capacity, then a new building might make sense. But we should explore the feasibilty of using existing alternatives before taking on this project. Just because the existing senior center is old and insufficient, it doesn’t mean that building a big new facility is the only alternative that should be explored.
Jane Frantz on August 2, 2019 at 6:09 pm
My prediction: this community center as planned will cost two to three times the $16m that’s been quoted.
FifthGenerationNewtonite on August 2, 2019 at 7:37 pm
If we are going to take park land why not take something that is been underused for years like the land between Day Middle School, Albemarle Fields and Crafts Street. The entrance could be on Crafts Streets with turning restrictions (only can take a right to get in and right to get out – i.e. same way you get to the NNHS Main Office and Tennis Court from Walnut St). A 20/30 foot buffer of trees could hide the building and parking from the residents along Craft Street. It could also include a new field house.
Ralph Ranalli on August 2, 2019 at 11:14 pm
How did we get here? This is classic City of Newton (particularly the Parks Department) showing no imagination or ability to plan in a comprehensive or holistic way, and pitting different groups of people against each other. It’s practically a way of life with Parks & Rec. Pit five or six different neighborhoods against each other, and the winners will be so glad it didn’t happen to them that they’ll have no sympathy for the losers. For decades we’ve needed a comprehensive plan that takes into account the recreational needs of people of all ages and finds a way to get everyone what they need and that takes full advantage of the many underutilized spaces in the city. Any competent manager will be an improvement over the retiring Bob Derubeis, but I have much higher expectations for you, Ruthanne. Do better.
Rick Frank on August 3, 2019 at 7:17 am
What about the ongoing costs for maintaining a 30000 sq ft facility?? With a cafe, elevated track ( I hope the elevated track has an elevator ) …and a pool? Lifeguard? Janitorial services? Repairs? Does anyone think anymore?
Jane Frantz on August 3, 2019 at 7:19 am
Beth – If the process was so transparent, how come no one knew about it? No one. Twelve people want a gym and a gym is added. This is a process? I’m a senior – trust me, a senior center does not need a gymnasium.
It was never the responsibility for the Working Group to decide the city needed a community center, which is what this is. The group was supposed to advise the mayor on a new senior center. This goes far beyond the mission of this group that was originally explained to the residents. Maybe new Working Group needs to be formed with the explicit mission to address the needs of seniors in Newton.
Your answer to the lack of knowledge about this project and the flawed process is that people should have gone to the website. If you don’t even know that a project is in the works, what exactly would people be searching for? Where was the outreach to the community?
This is a mess that’s getting messier by the day. The facts the mayor presents are different than those of the working group and that’s is disturbing. Why is the swimming pool not mentioned in this Memorandum? Has it been dropped from the project or just not mentioned in the Memo?
Fig – If we learned nothing else from selling public property in the 70’s and 80’s, once it gone, it’s gone forever. The same can be said of building on parkland. If the use of the parks can be improved, then that’s a separate issue.
- Greg Reibman on August 3, 2019 at 9:20 am
  If the process was so transparent, how come no one knew about it?
  Maybe the Tab reporting team were busy not covering something else.
Fignewtonville on August 3, 2019 at 9:17 am
Jane, I don’t disagree with your post or that the process has been flawed. But I would look at this as the park being improved if the facility looked liked the YMCA. A pool would be welcomed for instance.
But I do agree that I’m not sure the need is there. Perhaps it will be.
But I still don’t understand why this can’t be done as a partnership with the YMCA. Or the JCC. Or both.
Sarah on August 3, 2019 at 9:39 am
If the mostly negative views here are representative of the public at large, then why is the Mayor moving forward with this like it’s a done deal? Has the City Council already approved this? Do they need to?
Beth Dugan on August 3, 2019 at 9:59 am
@Rich Frank, if your post to me was a genuine question and not merely online venting: please see http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/seniors/age_friendly_newton/default.asp. The COA commissioned a study to better understand the needs of older residents. In addition the COA conducted a number of listening sessions (link on that same page).
@Jane Fritz, with healthier, longer lives a gym makes a lot of sense. There is every reason to expect increasing demand, especially as the baby boom cohort ages. Just having a gym for indoor activities during the winter will be a great asset to promote healthy aging and to reduce social isolation.
Now, I’ve heard a lot of frustration in this thread – with feeling not included or not having a voice or not trusting the process. Typing here is one thing, but it won’t move the needle – (despite the good intentions of the organizers). We, collectively, are Newton. Each of us can contribute and must contribute if we are going to create the Newton of the future. One solution is to engage more. Get informed, communicate with your representatives, attend the next NewCal meeting, reach out to members of the NewCal committee, run for office,+/or ask for a meeting with Mayor.
Sue Flicop on August 3, 2019 at 10:12 am
To be honest, I haven’t paid much attention because I have been in the Senior Center and can understand that it is just not a good building for a full complement of senior events and services. It’s been a while since I’ve been in it, but I remember that it seemed a difficult place to get into and to move around if you had mobility issues–plus it wasn’t very big.
My concern is that I can’t seem to find info on what other options have been considered and how the choices were winnowed down. Please send links if you know where the analysis is. It seems that the need for senior citizen programming space is now being pitted against parks, fields and playgrounds, which seems like a false choice. I can’t believe these six are the only options. What about the Crescent Street space (the former Parks and Rec site)? Was there a missed opportunity to plan for NewCAL at the same time the shifting of schools and programs was being considered? How important is it to have a centrally located center, or would space outside village centers be acceptable? I wonder how many people would drive or be driven versus walk…perhaps they can look at spaces further away like over on Wells Avenue or other spaces around Newton.
And as Gerry mentioned, the financing is a bit concerning in light of all the demands and contracts under negotiation (not to mention a raise for our elected officials!)
Tricia on August 3, 2019 at 10:48 am
That “under-used” land behind the fields and Day Middle School is conservation land – Avery Woods. It’s deed restricted.
https://newtonconservators.org/avery-woods-agreements/
So which fields at Albemarle would be taken for NewCal? The soccer/football/lacrosse, full-size baseball and full-size softball fields that are used by Day Middle School, youth leagues, and adult leagues? (And are among the very few lighted fields in Newton for evening use?)
Or the two Little League-sized baseball fields and smaller open field (which Day Middle School uses for track & field) on the other side of the pool? Keep in mind that Murphy Field (the Little League-sized field with the dugouts, bleachers, and fencing) is one of two such fields on the north side of Newton, and the other one, Lyons Field in Auburndale (which is the only one with lights and a permanent structure with concession and bathroom facilities) has been too wet and unplayable for most of the past two seasons (a perpetual but intermittent problem due to the low level of the field but now a near constant issue most likely exacerbated by both weather changes and increased development in the area.)
It seems like the idea behind NewCal is a way to get a new senior center AND a community/recreation center at the same time – and to appeal to a wider demographic for support for the higher cost of the expanded use. But I think we should have had a separate discussion/vetting of the need/priority/funding of a city-owned community/recreation center before it became attached to NewCal.
Julia Malakie on August 3, 2019 at 10:57 am
@Tricia – being able to call it a recreational facility may also be an attempt to avoid having to go to the state legislature for permission to use parkland.
Rick Frank on August 3, 2019 at 11:03 am
@Beth I looked at the PowerPoint,
I don’t see any comments by the participants. Where are they? What did the participants say?
I see only a vague mention of a senior center. No details.
The ages ranged from 14 to 99 (?)
I just sent an email to Emily Norton about this. She said she already told the mayors staff that she will not vote in favor of a plan that takes away green space.
The TAB for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist.
The city needed to communicate better. Passive links on a web site is not communicating.
Seems like there’s yet another thing I’m going to have to mobilize my money and time against.
Sigh.
Tricia on August 3, 2019 at 11:16 am
Julia – the amended agreement signed in 1968 to allow use of a couple of acres of Avery Woods to build Day Middle School specifically prohibits any use of the land for parking – which is why parking on site for Day is so limited.
Marti Bowen on August 3, 2019 at 11:26 am
From my comment on a recent thread
“From my research, it seems the price tag will be much higher – maybe three times more – with the inclusion of the gym and pool.”
Sometimes “big ideas” are not good ideas and come with a hefty cost in dollars and green space. Membership fees, at least for those who are not seniors, will be probably be required to pay the bills.
I too am over 60 but have learned nothing about procedure that I didn’t go looking for. I like the idea of the center, understand why one such as this may be necessary to fund and site and its usefulness to many. Both the JCC and the YMCA have hefty price tags.
Beth, your only answers to residents not being informed and complaints about the past and ongoing process are to tell us to get more involved. That is not an acceptable answer. Many of us, at least on this blog, are very involved in city issues and know for certain that your process is flawed and not transparent.
For example, the city website has no category on its menu for NewCal or a new senior center. It has the mixed -use developments, Special Permits, etc.
I had to search “NewCal” to find an out of date page that doesn’t include anything concerning what criteria is used in decision making – like how and why the commission changed its goal to building a community center instead of a senior center. Or the results of any surveys, studies or senior/community centers visited. It does contain the NewCal link.
The NewCal website tells readers what conclusions have been drawn – but not how or why they were drawn.
I have looked extensively for information on any decision-making process. If it weren’t for Amy Sangiolo’s constant effort, we wouldn’t know anything.
Please get rid of the awful acronym NewCal.
Rick Frank on August 3, 2019 at 11:27 am
Who would’ve guessed that the one thing that could unite all of Village 14 would be the poorly executed planning and communication by the city for a a new senior center!!
No playgrounds, ball fields or other open space should be “taken” for seniors ( and I’m over 60 so I can say this).
The city could fund discounts for the use of the YMCA for much cheaper.
fignewtonville on August 3, 2019 at 11:51 am
I don’t disagree with any of the comments on process. But the folks who are commenting on the loss of parkland and which field will be taken should also appreciate that footprint is flexible. You might lose a ballfield, you might not. Abermale in particular is not laid out well, and has wasted space from a parks and rec perspective.
I’ve never agreed with the reflexive – no changes ever to parkland ever. Many other communities build community facilities on their parkland. We built Gath pool on parkland. We build dog parks on parkland. I understand there is a loss of green space in any building that gets built, but you could alleviate that by putting in a green roof to some small extent. You could make the building LEED gold or platinum. And you could design it to minimize the disruption to the parks and other uses.
I also, as stated before, wish the folks who focus so much on losing parkland would start to push for better overall parks and open space in Newton. Our playgrounds and parks don’t compare to our neighbors. We underfund. It is amazing to me the passion that gets generated from the potential loss of the parks, when they are under used and under maintained.
Most this comes down to money. You can do all of the above with more resources. If we think this is valuable, we should vote on it and approve an override.
Tricia on August 3, 2019 at 12:20 pm
Fig – I wholeheartedly agree that our playgrounds, parks and fields don’t compare to our neighbors. The only reason that many of our playing fields and playgrounds are in any kind of decent shape is through the support (both financial and physical labor) of youth sport and PTO volunteer efforts. Our parks are definitely underfunded by the City, but I’m not sure I agree with the idea that they are underused (other than playing fields in the off-seasons, but we’re not in Florida.) The number of programs that compete for space at Albemarle in the spring, summer and fall is already huge, and there are lots of folks who would love to see the Gath Pool area enlarged and renovated to become more of a true community pool.
In the 15 or so years that I’ve been involved with various groups in playground and playing field issues in Newton, I’ve seen and been a part of many efforts to get more funding from the City for this stuff, and the answer is pretty much always along the lines of “we just don’t have the money.” So the leagues and the PTO’s try to shoulder the burden as best they can. After a while I guess you get resigned to it.
But to use playing fields and/or open space for a building when there are other options available? Very hard to support.
Laura J. on August 3, 2019 at 1:59 pm
Is there a particular reason why the new Senior Center has to have fitness facilities? If there isn’t, then why couldn’t the present building simply be remodeled/upgraded for a fraction of the cost of a new, state-of-the-art structure?
Ralph Ranalli on August 3, 2019 at 2:42 pm
I seem to remember another space usage discussion a few years ago when the city was buying the Waban Hill Reservoir from the MWRA. There was another process (and like this time that term was probably generous) and lo and behold, any recreational use that might benefit anyone other than the parcel’s wealthy abutters in Chestnut Hill was rejected out of hand. And now here we are talking about killing open space and playing fields in Nonantum, Newtonville, West Newton (not WN Hill), and Newton Centre. Hmmm. How about we do a taking and grab some land from Brae Burn or Woodland CC? Can’t they “rearrange” the recreational uses there?
Kyle on August 3, 2019 at 3:15 pm
Why does Newton feel the obligation to spend this money? We’ve got a lot of other priorities in town and by the way 70% of the town is not a senior citizen. The rest of us need to pay for our YMCA and gym memberships, why should seniors be any different?
This project is the mayor pandering to the reliable senior voting block.
Amy Sangiolo on August 3, 2019 at 4:56 pm
I keep thinking I’ve posted the link to the NewCal website but I keep seeing people ask what the link is: So here it is again: https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/?doing_wp_cron=1535116750.9565520286560058593750
Here is where you go to sign up for updates: https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/contact/?doing_wp_cron=1564865758.1954889297485351562500
Amy Sangiolo on August 3, 2019 at 5:23 pm
Oh and there are meeting notes that are part of the website.
Community comments can be found here: https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/community-feedback/
Community Meeting Presentations can be found here: https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/presentations/
It appears that some of the links are not working. For instance, I wanted to see some of other senior centers that may be used for comparison and the links were not working.
Also, the community feedback ends September 2018.
Julia Malakie on August 3, 2019 at 5:43 pm
I think I posted this on an earlier thread, but you can watch the June 2019 community feedback here:
https://youtu.be/zUHg9KHMYAg
Paul Levy on August 3, 2019 at 9:05 pm
Hmm, over 40 comments during one of the slowest weeks in the summer. I’d say, “Houston, we have a problem.” Do we need more evidence that it is time to step back and redesign the process that has led us here?
Karen Andres on August 3, 2019 at 9:23 pm
I refer you to Yvonne Abraham’s July 31, 2019 column in the Boston Globe, “Think it’s hot now? Just wait.” This column is one voice added to the clarion cry regarding the perils of a warming planet. Our salvation is more, not fewer, green spaces.
To destroy green spaces in favor of cement is INSANE. Is the Garden City staffed by climate change deniers?
Rick Frank on August 4, 2019 at 5:28 am
@fignewtonville “wasted space” implies what? That every inch of Albemarle field needs to be carved up by human hands? The center of the field is a place for people to put down a blanket and enjoy the sun. Or have a game of frisbee. Or for little children to just run around.
There is no such thing as wasted space.
Farzana Mohamed on August 4, 2019 at 7:25 am
With regard to process and outreach:
How have the various outreach sessions and community meetings been publicized? And how has the information generated in those meetings been more broadly shared?
For example, I regularly read the newsletter mailed to our home from the senior center. Not one has included a summary of the process or progress to date. Presumably, the newsletter is one good way to reach people. I’m quite surprised at the near-complete lack of any sort of reporting. The Jan/Feb Mar/Apr newsletters have no mention of the March 14 community meeting. The May/June calendar of senior programs doesn’t even list the June 21 NewCAL community meeting. Likewise, looking through all of the Mayor’s update email newsletters sent this year, aside from the June 25 NewCAL update, there’s only a single sentence mention of anything related to NewCAL.
It’s unclear from the meeting notes, too, how many people attended the sessions, or how broadly representative of the community that attendance and feedback has been. The minutes of the March community meeting indicates only 21 attendees – including 8 people on the working group, 8 members of the Executive Building Committee, 1 city staff member, and 4 architects/consultants. The minutes of the June 19 meeting don’t appear to be up yet, and it’s now August. How many people attended that meeting? Did it include anyone apart from members of the EBC, working group, or the consultants? What perspectives were raised?
Finally, what discussion, if any, has there been about creative ways to meet the wishes for access to additional facilities or services expressed in the meetings? Meetings led by an architect and owners project manager (NV5) will invariably focus on a building solution. Are there programmatic partnerships that have been explored? Several commenters here and on other posts have raised some good ideas. From what I read of the minutes, there seems to have been little exploration of these options. I’m happy to be corrected if I’m mistaken.
Claire on August 4, 2019 at 8:19 am
The idea of taking park land to build a Senior Center is insane! And I completely support better support for Seniors
Paul Levy on August 4, 2019 at 8:37 am
May I take a moment to talk about retractable bleachers, like those proposed for NewCAL? First, they are expensive to purchase and install, running to tens of thousands of dollars. Second, they are extremely cumbersome to open and close, requiring the effort of at least two physically fit people working in coordination. Third, they are difficult to climb up and down, even for people who are stable and well balanced. With no ageism intended, do we expect most seniors to want to climb up and down them? Finally, maintenance is a perennial problem, and it requires hiring a licensed and insured installer who follows the manufacturer’s instructions. Have we thought about the liability issues and the operating costs?
This is just an example of how ideas that came up in the Working Group brainstorming sessions have not been properly vetted. Remember, fewer than a dozen people contacted by the now defunct architectural consultants even asked for a gymnasium–much less retractable bleachers. Is it being included so the City can stretch the definition of NewCal to be a “recreation” facility, in the cynical hope of avoiding the state constitution’s Article 97 procedure–which requires a full environmental impact assessment and a 2/3 vote of the state legislature?
Claire on August 4, 2019 at 8:44 am
Including a gymnasium accounts for a third of the requested space. Is there really such strong demand for a dedicated gymnasium among Newton Seniors? Most schools have gym space. Why can’t an arrangement for shared gym space be created with existing schools? Why does a gym need to be built on existing green space vs on some under utilized hardscape?
fignewtonville on August 4, 2019 at 9:02 am
Rick, you misunderstood what I meant by wasted space. And perhaps you aren’t tramping around some of the fields of Newton as often as I am. But Albemarle has a few options for this type of facility, with minimal loss of green space.
Have folks visited the “field house” and/or the gath locker rooms lately? Both are already there and are concrete structures. Why not move the basketball court (which gets little use since no league uses it, and I rarely see it being used for pick-up basketball) nearer to the playground (where the kids would use it consistently). Or move the tennis courts to the same area behind the playground?
You then have a large footprint, taking no ball field or currently active field. You could wrap Gath pool on two sides, create new locker rooms and shade opportunities (or maybe even a covered pool). You’ve moved the basketball and tennis facilities.
BaseBall/softball fields especially create odd mini-fields that are not always maintained outside of the playing surface (they aren’t square playing fields). Perhaps folks just reflexively dismiss the idea, you should actually look at the map and try for a bit to be an urban planner. Maximizing space for community use sometimes means taking underused facilities (like the field house, like the space between baseball fields) and repurposing them for maximum enjoyment.
The real problem here is that the use and the programming isn’t fleshed out. Are we looking for 40,000 square feet per floor? A gym? A pool? Indoor pool? Hard to pick a location when you barely know the use.
I fully get the immediate gut reaction to repurposing parkland. But I hope folks will also be creative and try and give proposals a chance to develop. And I hope you actually take the time to walk the parks and look at the uses already in place. Perhaps there is space for a compromise that helps seniors and improves the park?
- Marti Bowen on August 4, 2019 at 10:47 am
  In Beth’s comments and links, the acreage needed is not decided. They point out that the programming decision must come first but then say the program plan is in place and move on to site selection. What is the program; how and when was it decided upon; where can it be found??
  Pause or full stop! Let the seniors and other residents know what is going on before proceeding.
  Why do the plans include a full sized gym or mixed-use space and not an indoor pool when the discussions seem to always include a pool? Water activities, swimming laps (even shorter than normal ones) and exercise (water aerobics) are one of the best things for seniors either for rehab purposes or just to keep fit. Pounding feet on hard surfaces is not.
  What is the full sized gym for that benefits seniors? Why not just a racquet ball size or one net basketball court? The seniors who can run the full length of a regulation sized basketball court can go to other gyms.
  Community meeting rooms are being built into mixed-use developments.
Jane Frantz on August 4, 2019 at 9:41 am
Beth – I am very involved in civic affairs, often visit the city website for a variety of purposes, attend city meetings frequently (was one of about 10 people at one just last week), receive and read David Olsen’s weekly update of government meetings, the mayor’s letter, Amy Sangiolo’s weekly update, and express my opinion to city councilors and school committee members on a wide variety of issues often. If someone with this type of profile knew nothing about this project until April of this year, then I feel perfectly comfortable saying the process was flawed and the community was not adequately informed of the change in mission from a senior center to a large community center.
I also met with the mayor. Let’s just say it didn’t go well. I was told I wanted everything for the children at the expense of senior services. These are words I never on any occasion stated or implied to anyone. These are words that never even entered my mind. I fully support a new senior center and excellent senior services. I AM a senior. I do not support a community center we cannot afford and no one has asked for. Up to this point, these have been my stated objections. Now that the city is talking about taking parklands, I have a third serious objection.
As for the gymnasium, I’m an physically active and fit senior citizen. That being said, my days of using a gymnasium are over, and I’m fine with that. The input of twelve people in the process of data collection doesn’t even qualify as noise.
Fig has the best solution – look into partnering with the local YMCA or JCC for the community spaces and build a designated senior center.
Terry Malloy on August 4, 2019 at 9:41 am
Newton has 21 underutilized gymnasiums (and one pool) in our schools. Already sited, built, maintained and centrally located. Some are brand new.
Would it be possible to create an innovative way to schedule and communicate through technology (the web) to utilize these resources in a comfortable way for seniors?
A gymnasium for NewCal seems like a questionable gilding of a questionable lilly?
Jane Frantz on August 4, 2019 at 10:43 am
Fig – Remember the outcry when the city proposed taking a small, underutilized corner of Cabot Park for 20 parking spaces? Like it or not, rational or not, it’s going to be the same thing, only on a larger scale, with residents from five parts of the city fighting against one another to maintain “their” park.
I like your idea about partnering with the YMCA or JCC for the community sections.
Paul Levy on August 4, 2019 at 11:53 am
The most disturbing thing I have seen here or elsewhere is Jane Frantz’s report of her meeting with the Mayor, when she said: “I was told I wanted everything for the children at the expense of senior services.” Jane indicates that was not at all her intention, nor did she advocate in that fashion. The Mayor’s job is to unify us, not demonize those who might have contrary views–or who are actually trying to help solve this problem. I predict that, if the Mayor persists in stubbornly refusing to listen, then NewCAL will become for her what the Newton North High School project was to Mayor Cohen.
Jane Hanser on August 4, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Paul is absolutely correct.
I recall being emailed the survey “what would you like to see?” And thus project thus grew larger and larger. (Honestly, all I wanted to see was billiards; I’m through with going to the younger spots where the music is loud and the lights blaring. Or maybe i should have included a ten-pin bowling alley??) At any rate, this is how the project just grew larger and larger, as we could write anything we wanted. Retractable bleachers??? The YMCA, which has low utilization during the day, already has two pools, one large and one smaller.
There is clearly a path that the city could take to provide better accommodations for seniors, at the same time not being fiscally or environmentally irresponsible. Seniors pushing for a multimillion dollar senior center should be on board.
I’m also a senior, and I disagree with the conclusion regarding the percentage of Newton residents who are 60+. I prefer the YMCA, I prefer to be around people of all ages. The young ones inspire me, and so do those older than me and lifting their weights! I love my Zumba, and And other classes with younger folk. The YMCA’s senior discount is minimal; perhaps the City should look into subsidizing it more substantially. With NewMo, the YMCA could then be added to the list of places that seniors can be taken to (and from). I know private health clubs in other cities and they are full of seniors – and they are integrated into the community, which of itself is a positive value. Furthermore, the main Library was just renovated to the tune of half a million dollars. Seniors go there frequently, including Saturdays and Sundays. . The current senior center doesn’t have to double as a library any longer, and would not need to house books that are no longer being read, of which I suspect there are many, and that could liberate space for activities. Renovate it with moveable walls, so that it would provide versatility of programming.
I too fear that this could be the Mayor’s “Newton North.”
We have existing structures, many in this post have listed places; renovations would include making the existing buildings more functional, and get us closer to our 2050/80 goals. All over land that Newton owns exist structures, many on city parkland, that could be updated – and it’s time to do that in any event – and accommodate residents who live in all the villages.
This includes:
– the existing senior center (which has an unusable boiler/heating system that could be removed, adding more space, and updating the system to be carbon neutral);
-the Lower Falls Community Center;
-the Emerson Community. Center (in Upper Falls);
-the Albermarle Fieldhouse; and
-The Hut (Newton Centre Playground, a totally dilapidated building with poor access).
Steve Carter on August 4, 2019 at 1:49 pm
Have we heard from anyone from the YMCA that they are “under utilized” at any time or any day? As a neighbor, I can tell you that the parking at the YMCA is insufficient to support their many existing programs and patrons. Overflow parking frequently clogs nearby Oakland Street and often goes to Church Street. Please do not assume that the YMCA can be used to cover NewCAL programs.
Jim Epstein on August 4, 2019 at 2:11 pm
EMAIL LETTER I JUST WROTE TO MAYOR FULLER, CC CITY COUNCIL:
August 4, 2019
The Honorable Ruthanne Fuller
Mayor of the City of Newton
City Hall
1000Commonwealth Ave.
Newton, MA 02459
Dear Mayor Fuller,
As a long time resident of Newton, it is no hyperbole for me to say that it is absolutely appalling that in this day and age, with all due respect, you would elect to narrow the possible sites for a New Senior Center (pegged with the supercilious moniker “NewCAL”) solely to six park/green sites within Newton: Albermarle Park, Cabot Park, McGrath Park, Newton Centre Playground/Park, Pellegrini Park, and Weeks Park — rather than consider formerly developed or non-green sites (whether currently city-owned or not).
More than that, it is absolutely astounding, again with all due respect, that someone with the political astuteness to become the Mayor of Newton could manifest such a tin ear to the blow back which has already begun (just take a look, for example, at the Village 14 blog site) and will most definitely intensify — that is, unless and until every park site is removed from the list.
I’m more than certain that were this issue presented to the voters, including seniors — especially those with homes in the affected areas — by a large margin they would opt for the preservation of green space. In other words, any political gain for inaugurating ‘NewCAL’ will be submerged by opposition to any significant loss of valuable green space for that purpose.
Forces opposed to any significant (and 2.5 acres in a densely developed Newton IS significant) loss of parkland are already gearing up. I cannot urge you strongly enough to reverse course and direct your Parks and Recreation and Public Building Departments accordingly.
Respectfully,
Jim Epstein
110 Manchester Road
Newton Highlands, MA 02461
617-447-5129
cc: Newton City Council
Isabelle on August 4, 2019 at 3:26 pm
I have been away for several weeks and am catching on V14. I am amazed at seeing all the new names of the writers on this topic of the new Senior Center. Isn’t the Mayor listening?
I agree with someone who said: “No playgrounds, ball fields or other open space should be “taken” for seniors ( and I’m over 60 so I can say this).”
Except I am over 70, I do not use the Senior center but I go to a gym.
Jane Hanser on August 4, 2019 at 3:34 pm
I’d like to add:
Newton’s Parks and Recreation Dept. already has numerous senior activities (55+) that take place all seven days of the week, and all year long, that Newton can be proud of. But we never hear about them in the existing conversation.
Many of those SENIOR activities take place at existing Newton Parks and Recreation sites, funded by P&R. These sites include The Hut, the Albemarle Field House (NOT the Gath Poolhouse but a separate structure, next to it and also adjacent to the tennis courts), the Lower Falls Community Center and the Emerson Community. Center (Upper Falls). The P&R programming also partners with existing private and local businesses for other exercise and athletic classes. They also sponsor many trips to places in MA and New England.
That the existing senior center originated as a library is immaterial; any building nowadays can be retrofitted as a new structure with a new purpose. What is now a lovely art museum – with moveable walls and a staircase and elevator enclosed in a bright glass staircase on the BC campus – used to be an archbishops’s residence.
I think it’s unfortunate when some turn this dialogue into an issue of ageism. Newton can be proud of its 55+ Parks and Recreation Senior Program and build upon that… and something to celebrate while Comm DeRubeis is still here with us in Newton. I think P&R would be happy to see those old buildings – some of which seem unsafe to be in – refitted and modernized, and made sustainably energy-efficient and models of what we want to see constructed in Newton.
Renovate and repurpose these smaller buildings on existing parkland, then use them while the existing senior center on Walnut St., separately funded, gets its makeover, expansion and improvements.
Paul Levy on August 4, 2019 at 4:16 pm
Another idea. If there really is a need for a new building (which has still not been shown), let’s look at the City-owned triangle parking lot in Newton Center. Bury the parking and put the senior center atop. Central location. Great transit access by trolley and T. Near lots of shops and restaurants. Take an eyesore away and replace with something lovely and useful. Perhaps incorporate privately owned space for businesses and/or senior housing so that costs are shared by non-City sources.
Jim Epstein on August 4, 2019 at 5:11 pm
Re the City-owned Newton Center triangle parking lot, why hasn’t that been buried long ago, with development (NewCAL or not) on top to defray the expense?
Amanda Heller on August 4, 2019 at 6:22 pm
Re the NC triangle parking lot, during my time on the Mayor’s NC Task Force about 15 years ago, the subject of undergrounding the parking of course came up, and information was presented that the possible existence of a rock ledge under the lot, and the blasting it would require for excavation, made the location a bad candidate for that kind of construction, especially given the proximity of so many fairly fragile commercial buildings. I don’t know if the existence of the ledge was ever proved or disproved. But the dozens of nearby businesses and the various property owners will remain an obstacle when and if the mayor and her developer friends expand their sights to Newton Centre.
Jane H. on August 4, 2019 at 7:46 pm
Thanks, Amanda for sharing that, something not well known, I think.
Claire on August 4, 2019 at 7:57 pm
My hope is to have the NC Triangle reclaimed as green space (think Public Garden). I think a better alternative can be found. Still not convinced we need a single huge site vs renovating the current building and augmenting with satelite and shared community space
Rick Frank on August 4, 2019 at 10:06 pm
@fignewtonville
Do you have any concept of what 30000 sq ft is? A basketball court is about 4500 sq ft.
- Marti Bowen on August 5, 2019 at 7:30 am
  Do you think a senior center needs a full sized gym? Or that we need another gym in a community center/senior center. I don’t. I’m sure there are a few but many seniors would use one the size of a racquet ball or one basket hoop court.
  A smaller, non-regulation size pool would be much more appropriate. There are many seniors who swim laps or use pools for exercise either to maintain fitness or to strengthen their core either after surgery or just because.
  An anecdote from my over 60 life: Over the last 2 years I have needed several surgeries. One was a right shoulder rotator cuff injury (caused by my “wicked serve” ) that stopped my participation in my lifelong passion of playing competitive tennis. It kept my right arm incapacitated for 10 weeks. Other surgeries were related to breast cancer and having fluid around my lungs. It seems like I’m always in some type of PT. It’s amazing how fast muscles deteriorate after being kept from use!! Getting old sucks.
  Every doctor and physical therapist has recommended further strengthening in a pool – not necessarily a full sized pool. I see mostly seniors at the indoor pools I use.
Rick Frank on August 4, 2019 at 10:08 pm
@fignewtonville
And I bet the court at Albemarle isn’t even 4000 sq ft.
Fignewtonville on August 5, 2019 at 1:17 am
Rick:
Yep, I do. It really just depends on programming and building height. I didn’t say it was just the basketball court. It would depend on the width and length you’d need. You’ve got the field house, the gath locker rooms and the basketball court at a minimum. But you can get a good sized footprint with some creativity without losing any ball field or playground and improving Gath pool in the process.
Not saying it is the right choice . But it is certinaly workable from a planing department perspective.
Paul Levy on August 5, 2019 at 8:35 am
From the Newton Parks and Recreation Commission manual, which says transfer of open spaces for other municipal uses should only be “as a last resort after all other reasonable options have been found deficient.” (http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=32238.88&BlobID=96605) The result could not be any more clear, given the deficiencies in the NewCAL planning process:
1. The Parks and Recreation Commission supports the long term preservation of open space in the City of Newton for the benefit of current and future generations of Newton citizens. Open space used for park, recreation and playground purposes should be diverted to other uses only as a last resort after all other reasonable options have been found deficient.
a) In considering the transfer of land for a proposed new use,the Commission will analyze the short and long-term need for the new use in balance with the public trust served by the existing public open space use.
b) The Commission will insure that the intrinsic long-term public values of park and playground open space are weighed explicitly and substantially in the balance and are not overridden by the expediency that publicly owned park and playground open space does not require purchase or eminent domain. The consideration of intrinsic public values will include an estimation of the costs necessary to provide equivalents to the existing park and playground open space. The fact that using park, recreation or playground open space for a new use would be less expensive is not by itself sufficient to warrant the transfer of the land or to reject another potential alternative.
c) The Commission will not divert park and playground open space to other uses unless there has been a compelling showing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, including both publicly and privately owned potential sites, as well as potential sites that are not currently in open space use.
Jim Epstein on August 5, 2019 at 8:58 am
Paul, great work!
Please please please email a letter to the Mayor, cc to each and every City Councilor, conveying exactly what you say in your comment here, including the link. (For ease, if you wish, I have all the email addresses, so let me know.)
This, coupled with others citing this to the Mayor, plus letters such as mine above, should put this “NewCAL in the Park” proposition to bed.
And please do it ASAP, like now!
So may thanks to you.
Jim Epstein on August 5, 2019 at 9:07 am
Paul, BTW, I didn’t even bother looking this up/checking this out before my email letter thinking the City Parks and Recreation and Public Building Departments, along with the Mayor, could not have been so stupid as to proceed with all 6 NewCAL proposals being parks in the face of such provisions.
Matt Lai on August 5, 2019 at 10:43 pm
The topic of the pending explosion of our senior population (myself included, eventually) keeps coming up, but consider this….
All of the developments of scale being discussed – Austin St., Washington St., Needham Street, Riverside – are all apartments.
Here’s a sample listing of rents that the Needham Street developer currently changes at their property at nearby Waltham:
https://www.apartments.com/the-merc-at-moody-and-main-waltham-ma/4e9cqqh/
At these rates and scale, single and 2 family properties become more scare and their value will only rise, which means so too will their tax payments, leaving Seniors with decreasing or fixed incomes being forced to sell.
So then, who are we building NewCAL for?
With Villages that aging Newtonians have grown to know and love, turning into pockets of urban density, what’s their incentive to stay and benefit from a NewCAL?
Paul on August 6, 2019 at 10:26 pm
@Paul Levy
What would it take for you to run against Fuller in the next election?
She doesn’t deserve another term running a process like this. We need some real management experience in our Mayor’s office.
Paul Levy on August 6, 2019 at 10:35 pm
I’m not the least bit interested, but thank you for the compliment. I’m still hopeful she can work with the community and bring us together on this issue.
Daniel Jackson on August 7, 2019 at 5:34 pm
If you oppose the use of parkland for NewCAL, please sign the petition
https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
and forward the link to your friends!
Let’s mobilize and show the Mayor the widespread opposition to this plan!
Eric Myrvaagnes on August 7, 2019 at 7:41 pm
I am a senior citizen and I makefrequent use of many of the Newton parks and conservation lands. I strongly oppose the use of open space or park land to be used for NewCAL.
Peter Yaffe on August 7, 2019 at 8:59 pm
Do not take parkland for a senior center
Cedar Pruitt on August 9, 2019 at 10:11 am
I’m really shocked and disappointed that this Mayor and the NewCAL team are considering taking any parkland for the new senior space.
Green space and parkland contributes so much to the Newton community, from wildlife to sports space to open sky to tree habitat, and it’s an integral part of what makes Newton a good place to live.
To have Ablemarle Field on this list is especially striking and sad to me. Disrupting this swath of green space threatens our cultural community fabric – our firework celebrations, our regional swim meets, and the many games that are played there from early morning till late night — not to mention the hawks that live there.
It seems I’ve seen plenty of dilapidated buildings and old office parks in Newton. Some spring to mind in West Newton. Surely we can use some of the funding we receive from developers to transform areas zoned for business purposes into centers for seniors?
I’m chilled to think that there is an agenda for Newton other than creating a community engaged with the future that is walkable, bike-able and enjoyable for all who relish parkland. While kids, families, wildlife and trees may not be constituents with the deepest pockets, they make our community so rich in other ways, and need our voice.
Jane Hanser on August 9, 2019 at 11:38 am
Here’s what BC did with the former Archbishop’s residence at BC, just down the road on Comm Ave, to not have to start from scratch or use up existing and valuable parkland and by hiring preservationist architects:
https://www.high-profile.com/bpa-awards-mcmullen-museum-restoration/
Beth Dugan on August 9, 2019 at 1:16 pm
We need a new senior center.
Jim Epstein on August 9, 2019 at 1:36 pm
Beth, while we may need a new senior center, it is no hyperbole to say that it is absolutely appalling that in this day and age, the Mayor would elect to narrow the possible sites for a New Senior Center (pegged with the supercilious moniker “NewCAL”) solely to six park/green sites within Newton: Albermarle Park, Cabot Park, McGrath Park, Newton Centre Playground/Park, Pellegrini Park, and Weeks Park — rather than consider formerly developed or non-green sites (whether currently city-owned or not).
More than that, it is absolutely astounding that someone with the political astuteness to become the Mayor of Newton could manifest such a tin ear to the blow back which has already begun and will most definitely intensify — that is, unless and until every park site is removed from the list.
Were this issue presented to Newton voters, including seniors, by a large margin they would opt for the preservation of green space. Forces opposed to any significant (and 2.5 acres in a densely developed Newton IS significant) loss of parkland are already gearing up.
If you doubt what I am saying, simply go here and read the well more than 100 comments: https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
Beth Dugan on August 9, 2019 at 1:46 pm
Jim, we need a new senior center. Siting and financing any municipal project are always a challenge, but I think we can trust the Mayor and the workgroup to be thoughtful in making these decisions.
Hyperbole and name calling is not coming from my side of the discussion.
Jim Epstein on August 9, 2019 at 2:07 pm
Beth, may I point out to you the following:
The Mayor has reported that she is “continuing to search for, and analyze non-City owned parcels” for NewCAL. In view of the provisions of the City of Newton Parks & Recreation Commission Manual (pages 44-45), pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 45, there shall be no diversion “of park and playground open space to other uses unless there has been a compelling showing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, including both publicly and privately owned potential sites, as well as potential sites that are not currently in open space use.” To have inaugurated the NewCAL site selection process to the point of actually determining the six park sites, without first having made a “compelling showing” of “no feasible and prudent alternative” is the proverbial “putting the cart before the horse”.
Therefore, it would constitute an abuse of discretion for the Mayor currently to continue to commit City expense of money, time and effort further to analyze among those six park sites. But more than that, it is committing Newton residents unnecessarily to have to commit expense of money, time and effort to protect and preserve those parks.
It seems difficult to believe that in this day and age among seasoned politicians, those forces backing NewCAL are lacking in awareness of the intense opposition to using existing parks and green space — which opposition is rapidly accelerating. lt would behoove the Mayor immediately to suspend all action on assessing among the six park sites at least pending the determination that there is no feasible and prudent alternative (and even in the case of no alternative, whether Newton residents elect to sacrifice parkland for NewCAL). This will both comply with the law as well as eliminate the fermenting storm.
Jane Frantz on August 9, 2019 at 3:11 pm
Beth-I agree that we need a new senior center and fully support the rebuilding of the current space on an appropriate site.
We do not need, nor can we afford, a community center. I’m not sure why that distinction isn’t getting through to the mayor and her supporters.
Steve Navarroli on August 9, 2019 at 4:26 pm
Steve Navarroli…While I support a new and better/larger senior center, I cannot support the taking of parklands. If the City wants to create a new and better Senior Center the City should compete with the likes of Mr. Korff and bid on/’buy properties that are “ripe for development”.
Perhaps Mr Korff and the Mayor
I realize that this will cost the City and the taking of parklands will not, but the City stands to reap a significant tax benefit from Mr Korff’s developments…current and future (and he has many future developments in mind in Newtonville), so let’s make some plans and decisions that take the whole city into account and not push the ” interest group” agenda that we do in Washington. Why cannot Mayor Fuller and Mr Korff sit down together in order to solve this problem?
Steve Navarroli
Steve Navarroli
Laura J. on August 9, 2019 at 5:32 pm
@ Greg: Slightly off topic, but your comment above from several days ago (“Maybe the Tab reporting team were busy not covering something else.”) stuck with me and had me entertaining fanciful ideas about Newton citizens getting together and starting up a locally run newspaper. Lo and behold, check out this article in today’s Boston Globe about some Cape Cod citizens doing that very thing:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/08/09/they-starting-yes-starting-newspaper-cape/i27BrH3gZnGyKiM0ontFUJ/story.html
So it turns out my ideas weren’t so fanciful after all. It CAN be done. Maybe we could resurrect The Newton Times . . . .
FifthGenerationNewtonite on August 9, 2019 at 5:46 pm
My cynical side hopes that the Mayor is not pushing the NewCAL ahead, purposely generating all this anger, so later down the road her buddy Korof can step in as a “White Knight” and offer land and/or space in one of his developments in exchange for something the city would never agree to otherwise.
Claire on August 9, 2019 at 7:44 pm
@FifthGenerationNewtonite My suspicion exactly
Jane Frantz on August 9, 2019 at 9:23 pm
There is definitely more to this story than meets the eye. As City Councilor, Mayor Fuller sat on the Cabot School building committee and saw firsthand the complete uproar when the city tried to take a very small section of the park for staff parking. She definitely understands that taking parklands is a hot button issue.
To the extent that people continue to use the acronym, people will be think that the proposal currently on the table is a senior center – which has substantial support. The support for another community center, which is what the new proposal is, is questionable because the larger community hasn’t been included in the conversation and does not have representation on the Working Group.
Ralph Ranalli on August 12, 2019 at 4:18 pm
Rick Lipof has apparently been calling people defending the process and saying they would “only” need 2 acres from one of the existing parks. “Only 2 acres.” Good one. Hey Rick, call me, OK? Let’s talk.
Paul Levy on August 12, 2019 at 4:41 pm
Real estate people like to round things up or down, I guess, depending on their purpose. He’s the only one saying 2 acres. All the NewCal documents say 2.5 acres, and maybe more if there is “space available” for a swimming pool. Of course, even at “only” 2 acres, you’d lose a big percentage of the parks listed.
Meanwhile, as of this writing over 2300 people have signed Daniel Jackson’s petition (in just a few days): https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks. This suggests that the Councillor’s attempt to diminish the impact is not having much success.
Quote from the petition:
“It is undoubtedly important to serve Newton’s seniors. But eliminating public green space to do so is short-sighted. Newton’s parks are amongst its greatest assets, and their value to the community cannot be measured in simple financial terms. Our parks are precious natural areas and a refuge in the face of inevitable urbanization. They have been nurtured and protected by the city for decades if not centuries, and it would be a tragedy if green space is lost in the rush to find a site for a new city building.
“We appeal to Mayor Fuller to immediately remove all public parks from consideration for the NewCAL site, and to reaffirm Newton’s commitment to preserving its natural spaces.”
Please add your name to the petition. Thanks.
Jim Epstein on August 12, 2019 at 4:43 pm
Does Rick Lipof have any idea what a political disaster this is causing for the Mayor? Have you seen the the anti-NewCAL in the Park petition — https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks — closing in on 2,5o0 signatures in just 5 days (the largest such petition in Newton history) — and much more to come!?! (If this goes on much longer without some announcement by the Mayor that all parks/recreation fields are off limits for NewCAL, her re-election would be remote. I have repeatedly implored her to act immediately, but I believe this may be a case of a political tin ear.)
Jane Frantz on August 12, 2019 at 5:08 pm
I hope the councilors are keeping their ears to the ground on this one. This is August – typically a very slow month in Newton. That any issue could capture voters’ attention is remarkable at the very least. November will be a low turnout muni election – those that feel strongly about an issue get to the polls.
Jim Epstein on August 12, 2019 at 9:11 pm
EARLIER TODAY I SENT THIS TO THE NEWTON SOLICITOR, CC THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
August 12, 2019
via email
Alissa Ocasio Giuliani
Solicitor of the City of Newton
City Hall
1000 Commonwealth Ave.
Newton Centre, MA 02459
Dear Ms. Giuliani,
I refer you to my below e-Ietter of August 6, 2019 to Mayor Fuller and City Councilor Lipof regarding apparently what remain are their current plans and/or goals to site a new Senior Center (“NewCAL”) in one out of a list of six designated Newton parks. While the public blowback has been fierce, evidenced, for example, by an online petition in opposition already signed by in excess of 2,500 individuals in the first 5 days alone — https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks — I’m raising with your office what members of the public see as a flawed legal process in regards NewCAL site selection. One aspect of that flawed legal process is presented in my August 6 e-letter, below, that park siting of NewCAL is impermissible in the absence of first determining no feasible and prudent alternative (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 45, as implemented in the Newton Parks & Recreation Manual (pages 44-45)).
The second aspect of that flawed legal process has to do with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, essentially requiring a 2/3 vote of each house of the Massachusetts legislature, before Newton can proceed with NewCal in the Park. This has particular applicability here because of the recent case, Smith v. Westfield, 478 Mass. 49 (2017).
I’m hoping that your bringing this to the attention of Mayor Fuller and Councilor Lipof will convince them to eliminate all Newton park and outdoor recreation sites from NewCAL consideration. The harsh and widespread negative public reaction has thus far failed to elicit a change in direction. And opponents are hoping not to be required to seek an injunction down the road.
If you feel that what I raise here has no legal bearing, please let me know. In any case, your earliest reply is respectfully requested.
Sincerely,
/S/
Jim Epstein
110 Manchester Rd.
Newton Highlands, MA 02461
cc:
Mayor Fuller
Newton City Council
* * * * * *
August 6, 2019
The Honorable Ruthanne Fuller
Mayor of the City of Newton
Councilor Rick Lipof
Newton City Council
Dear Mayor Fuller and Councilor Lipof,
While I do sincerely appreciate your (Mayor Fuller) quickly getting back to me, there remain two immediate concerns.
First, you now point out that [the NewCAL Working Group] is “continuing to search for, and analyze non-City owned parcels” for NewCAL. In view of the provisions of the City of Newton Parks & Recreation Commission Manual (pages 44-45), pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 45, there shall be no diversion “of park and playground open space to other uses unless there has been a compelling showing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, including both publicly and privately owned potential sites, as well as potential sites that are not currently in open space use.” To have inaugurated the NewCAL site selection process to the point of actually determining the six park sites, without first having made a “compelling showing” of “no feasible and prudent alternative” is the proverbial “putting the cart before the horse”.
Therefore, with all due respect, it would constitute an abuse of discretion currently to continue to commit City expense of money, time and effort further to analyze among those six park sites. But more than that, it is committing Newton residents unnecessarily to have to commit expense of money, time and effort to protect and preserve those parks, which dovetails with my second immediate concern:
Councilor Lipof has implied on the public blog site, Village 14, that opposition to sacrificing particular park land is largely Nimby driven. That is a gross underreading by Councilor Lipof, since overwhelming opposition to sacrificing any park and green space is city-wide (unless we say all Newton residents are Nimby to all Newton parks).
Perhaps (although it seems difficult to believe in this day and age among seasoned politicians), those forces backing NewCAL are simply lacking in awareness of the intense opposition to using existing parks and green space — which opposition is rapidly accelerating. In any case, I, along with many others, feel it would behoove you to, and therefore request that you, immediately suspend all action on assessing among the six park sites at least pending the determination that there is no feasible and prudent alternative (and even in the case of no alternative, whether Newton residents elect to sacrifice parkland for NewCAL). This will both comply with the law as well as eliminate the fermenting storm.
Finally, if you or the City take issue with the above legal requirement or its applicability here, your letting me know would be most appreciated.
Respectfully,
Jim Epstein
cc: Newton City Council
Kathy Winters on August 13, 2019 at 10:10 am
Gerry – I would not vote to site the senior center on parkland if it encroached on green space or use of the parks and playgrounds. As we add more density in the city, it is more important than ever to hold on to our green spaces and fields. I have been a coach for several sports and my four kids have played on all of the 6 named sites, so I am well familiar with how maxed out we are in terms of field use. But I can’t give you a complete NO on parks. If a plan comes forward that sites a senior center on parkland in a way that replaces or improves on existing structures and does not take additional greenspace or fields, I would be open to it.
Tricia on August 13, 2019 at 6:53 pm
And the “winner” is… Albemarle!
“The NewCAL Working Group met today to analyze the six city-owned parcels in Newton and has recommended the Albemarle-Gath Pool as the top ranked site. The other five on the shortlist did not adequately meet the Working Group’s goals of open space preservation. Albemarle not only works well for the community center focused on seniors – NewCAL – but also for the current uses of all the green space and adds a badly needed update of the swimming facilities. This location for NewCAL preserves all the park and valuable green space; please know that I heard the concerns of so many about the potential loss of park land on the sites.”
Pat Irwin on August 13, 2019 at 7:09 pm
Hark! What is that great rumbling I hear in the distance? It’s coming closer…
Jane O'Connor Frantz on August 13, 2019 at 7:23 pm
Unbelievable. Without a debt exclusion override to pay for a 38,000 sf capital project, something from the supposedly tight budget will have to be cut.
Nancy Mazzapica on August 22, 2019 at 7:44 pm
We can t afford this plus it s another project for this side of town . So let’s add more traffic trying to cross through the city to get to this new facility. Parking is already tight on this very narrow street.
The City and the Mayor have not fully investigated other non parkland locations.
Needham has a great new senior center but their biggest problem is insufficient parking.
They will be taking more green space than what they are proposing .
So tennis courts and basketball courts may be played on asphalt but they are still consideredparkland!

Mayor Fuller: NewCAL site narrowed to six locations

102 Comments

Categories

Archives

Mayor Fuller: NewCAL site narrowed to six locations

102 Comments

Categories

Archives

Tags