I’m guessing that if we drew a Venn diagram of those people in Newton who want to preserve the City’s parks and other open spaces and those who want to provide enhanced services in a new senior center, it would look something like this.
So, if so, it’s the job of our Mayor and City Councillors to recognize this consensus and act in ways that unite us rather than divide us. Thus far, that’s not happening. Here’s hoping it does soon.
A large part of the problem is this:
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.
…and this may help, go to this link:
https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
Jim, you say, “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.”
Seems to me that you’re describing the realistic cost of social engagement, though as I’ve said before I wish that “effort budget” could be spent differently, getting us closer to something rather than further away (and I’m not assigning any fault for that). Certainly isn’t the first or the last time it will happen. Processes aren’t perfect.
But at any rate, if any resident is still “committing an expense of money, time, or effort” at this point, they can probably chill out over the weekend, gardening or hitting the beach with the family or something. It’s not like NewCAL’s planning is going to slip through the cracks at this point.
I think Paul’s starting this particular thread represents a nice semi-colon in this discussion. Let’s hear specific next steps from the administration and our representatives. It’s mid-August. It might take a week or two. I see little value in further piling on, especially for the effort-conscious.
Thanks Mike!
Mike – A nice August weekend off is a great idea for all the local brouhahas, and I plan to wait a week to see if there are adjustments to the community center plan. That being said, the mayor’s update is an indication that she is not interested in the feedback.
It’s too bad that it’s come to this place. I hear a lot of support in the city for a senior center that focuses on our needs. As I’ve stated, I am a senior and am thoroughly aware of the issues related to the needs of seniors: isolation, the need for good nutrition and exercise, social events. As a baby boomer, every stage of my life has been significantly affected by the size of my generation. Our senior years will not be easy on society.
Now to the beach.
Great advice, Mike!
The Newton Armory space should be pursued as the site of a new Newton Senior Center. The focus should be on a Senior Center which I believe has community support and not on a NewCAL.
Peter, of course the Washington Street Armory is the logical site for a new senior center (a/k/a the supercilious moniker, ‘NewCAL’) . But under our City administrators, dense housing developments, like the Newtonville parking lot adjacent to the existing senior center and now the Armory, TRUMP parkland preservation.
Given this project has seen months of work by many different people, only to apparently miss important public input and potential legal restrictions, it might be best to avoid sweeping statements like “of course the Washington Street Armory is the logical site”.
Let’s measure at least three times before we cut this time.
Mike, any reason why you would say the Washington Street Armory is not a more logical site than existing parkland?
The terms of sale for the armory site require that it be used for affordable housing.
I know that I know extremely little about the Armory, and I also that I know very little about the complex issues regarding senior services compared to the people on the project’s working group, those whom they’ve interviewed, and other knowledgeable people I hope will now been drawn into the process.
And now I know so much more about what I don’t know about parks and parkland.
But it’s my guess that I’m not alone. That the number of people who know about all these things is pretty small. Maybe none. Which is why we have to work together, pool our knowledge and experience, and address the needs of our fellow citizens. Seniors. People in need of affordable housing. Families. Everyone.
And that means believing in process, and fixing flaws in it when they arise.
And that’s hard, much harder than commenting on a blog. Because it means acknowledging the limits of one’s own understanding of issues, waiting to find out more facts and opinions, and trusting in others.
If we get sufficient assurance that all facts and opinions will be heard, as Paul Levy suggests, we can move forward to solving this problem. To make things better. That’s my focus.
Greg, when you say terms of sale, is that something in the deed — or just the terms of a purchase and sale agreement? What entity CURRENTLY owns the armory?
Greg, I’m sure we could make a credible argument. I’m not in favor of taking valuable parkland and diminishing our open space.
From Jenna Fisher.
Mike, if it weren’t for getting the word out to the masses of Newton residents, such as in this blog site, public emails to the Mayor and City Council, and petitions — https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks — with now approaching 1,500 signers in just 3 days — not many people would even know about the “NewCAL in the Park” issue. The City administration’s process and limiting to park sites, until this all came out, was not known by many people. And that fault lies with the City Administration. So I don’t think it is productive to criticize this ongoing process — aimed to shine light and garner public comment, so the City can now project that by an overwhelming majority, residents do NOT want to sacrifice ANY parkland for NewCAL. See, for example, the more than 100 specific comments/opinions left by signers of the petition.
@Greg: So pay a little more…..
Greg, thanks, but again, who is the “they” in the “they’ll give it to us…”? Is the they the Massachusetts National Guard, the U.S. National Guard, the United States Army, or some other entity? Or, you don’t know, or nobody asked, who the “they” is — in which case I’ll ask Mayor Fuller and/or the City’s Solicitor’s Office if I can not otherwise ascertain.
A proposal to use parkland to build a senior center results in hundreds of petition signatures against. The process is criticized for not listening to green-space advocates and other opinions and expertise in the community.
I’m not sure the logical next step is to then propose a senior center at Newton’s only new planned 100% affordable housing site (with the acquisition of that property made contingent on that fact), without carefully listening to affordable housing advocates and other opinions and expertise in the community.
Yes, one proposal was by the city after months of planning, and the other’s just some comments on this blog and on some other mailing lists. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with evaluating the merits of the idea itself.
But the optics of the comparison sure aren’t awesome. There’s no quick or obvious answer here. We’ll have to work it out as a community. And likely not online.
For your summer reading pleasure, check out this report issued by National Guard about reuse of old armories: https://www.nationalguard.mil/portals/31/Documents/About/Publications/Documents/Still%20Serving%20-%20National%20Guard%20Armories.pdf
And if you’ve ever wondered why many of the armories look like castles, some complete with a portcullis, this book by my old MIT colleague Robert Fogelson is a delightful summary: https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Armories-Architecture-Society-Public/dp/0674031105. Hint: It has to do with labor unrest in the early 1900’s and concern that unruly workers would attack the armories. Really!
The only way to get the Armory for $1 is to use it for 100% affordable housing. But it’s not the only way to get the Armory for less than market value. From Mayor Fuller’s May 17 newsletter:
Depending on the cost of converting the Armory to apartments (which would include widening window openings sufficient to provide secondary egress from each apartment, and allow a fully equipped firefighter to get in), it could make more sense to buy it for 25% or fair market value and convert it to a different use for which the renovation doesn’t cost as much. I believe archives has been suggested, which has a certain appeal, since for archives you want security and temperature control, and it probably wouldn’t generate much traffic.
The 25% option is why the administration requested, and almost all of the City Council agreed (Brenda Noel being the exception) to provide for the flexibility to pursue a non-housing option in the event housing is not feasible, in approving the docket item.
This is not to say the Armory would necessarily work for a senior center, but it’s not ruled out by DCAMM.
Whatever the use, I would strongly prefer to keep at least the front facade of the Armory intact, to preserver the historic architecture.
I JUST SENT THIS EMAIL LETTER TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
August 10, 2019
The Honorable Ruthanne Fuller
Mayor of the City of Newton
Dear Mayor Fuller,
I write to you again about NewCAL because I’ve become aware of the April 16, 2019 Patch article wherein you are reported to have stated that the National Guard Armory Building on Washington Street “has sat empty for quite some time and the state recently came to [you] to see if the city would be interested in acquiring the 33,000 square foot property — under the condition [the city] uses it for affordable housing.” You go on to say, “The only way they’ll give it to us for 1$ is if it’s 100 percent affordable housing.”
Since this site’s size and location is as perfect for a new senior center as exists in Newton wherein the existing Walnut Street Senior Center is retained as an annex, with the Armory’s exterior architecture preservable in adaptation to a senior center, with all due respect, “this is a no brainer” — especially since NO PARKLAND OR GREEN SPACE IS SACRIFICED.
I’m nearly confident that negotiations can ensue with the Commonwealth to acquire the building and site, if not for $1 which I’m not aware is not possible with negotiations, than under circumstances or price FAR FAR less than market rate (provided the exterior architecture is preserved), or with some other arrangements with the Commonwealth.
On behalf of more than many residents throughout Newton dedicated to not sacrificing parkland for NewCAL, please present this to City Council and contact the Commonwealth about this.
Insofar as additional new housing otherwise contemplated for the Armory, we just sacrificed the Newtonville parking lot for dense housing, which would have been perfect for NewCAL especially being adjacent to the existing senior center. Let’s not make the same mistake again.
Please unite this city.
Respectfully,
Jim Epstein
110 Manchester Rd.
Newton Highlands, MA
617-447-5129
cc: Newton City Council
Okay, move on from the Armory if it can’t be used.
Speaking out is the only way the issues with this project are going to be addressed, to find out what happened and how. I wouldn’t suggest backing off. That simply hasn’t worked up to this point.
I looked for the the Working Group meeting notes and couldn’t find them. However, I did find the notes from the community meetings. Reference is made to the “amazing” turnout at two meetings held at the Ed Center which does not have a room that holds an amazing number of people.
The January, 2019 meeting has a short descriptive paragraph that states “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”. There is no mention of additional space beyond those provided for senior services.
Then at the next meeting on February 15th, the notes state “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.” So the words “designed” and “the broader community” are introduced at this point, but are not defined, nor is additional space indicated.
The March 14th meeting has clear and specific meeting minutes. In the minutes, it states that the facility would be about three times larger than the current space, would include a gymnasium and a swimming pool. Mayor Fuller stated that it would be paid for through bonding and the existing city budget.
The only other meeting listed is on June 21st in the same small space with an “amazing” turnout. At this meeting, the project includes a list of city-owned properties and the following information about the facility needs:
Site size: approximately 2.5 acres
Building size: 38,000 sf
Parking: 75 spaces
Given the lack of information provided on this website, I’d like to see some of the information gaps filled in. It’s still not clear to me if the Working Group kept meetings or audio recordings.
Jane, as per my above email letter to the Mayor (cc City Council), the Armory CAN be used if and upon negotiated terms, which in all instances, is far preferable to the existing 6 park sites. Adept politician(s) could/would get the job done!
That’s also fine with me.
My concerns about this project are really different- process, cost, what bucket will the funding will come from, what will we not have as a result of additional funding coming from the city budget for the expansion of the facility from a senior center to a community center.
@Jim Epstein, thank you for keeping the discussion of using the Armory for a Senior Center moving forward.
No doubt, this is probably the best solution and it preserves parkland and open space in the City.
The Armory site is small, and the building will be costly to retrofit. I’d suggest killing two birds with one stone, by taking the former Mishkan Tefila site on Hammond Pond Parkway from BC by eminent domain. According to the Assesor’s Office BC paid $20M for the site. It has an existing structure that’s in great shape and plenty of parking. Taking that particular property would also insure the permanent preservation of Webster Woods.
I’m getting whiplash. Didn’t we just pat ourselves on the back as a community for making the no-brainer deal of accepting the gift of the Armory?
But wait…we have a higher and better use now than affordable housing. Community Center! And folks wonder why so few units of stand-alone affordable get built in our fair city….
Ok, so some hard truths:
1) the affordable housing was likely to be built using federal and state governmental incentives. But none exist for the NewCal on this site.
2) The site itself is small. No room for parking. We are talking apples and oranges from the discussions for NewCal. And if you are going to shrink the project that much, why not just do the whole thing at the current senior center and rehab it.
3) That’s a tough building to rehab as it is. Historic rehabs gets govt incentives for a reason, they cost more. And I doubt any use would qualify on this building, unlike other armories around the state.
We are now in the silly season on the blog on this topic. I get it, passionate folks are worried/concerned/angry about our loss of parks. Some folks are also personally invested in the result, which makes them even more passionate. But Armory is a tough lift absent major funds, and we are basically churning our wheels. It is August. Nothing is happening yet. The alarm has been raised. Absent the mayor jumping on the blog or actual new information, we are at the point where folks are just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.
But let me take a portion of Jane’s argument as my own if she’ll let me. I don’t know what the project is supposed to be. I don’t know how we got here. I don’t know why it needs to be big or the programming. And I don’t know why I don’t know (since I tend to follow this stuff).
So I think rather than throw out ideas of where to put the building, I’d like to know more about the need, the programming, and required size, and the process.
And Mike, if you try and take Webster Woods by eminent domain, BC will fight you in court for a decade. And the FMV of that property is now higher than what they paid for it. And for what “public purpose” exactly are we taking BC’s land? Generally I thought a taking needed to satisfy a public purpose requirement to protect or promote the public health, welfare or safety of the community. I realize the Supreme Court has expanded the definition of public purpose, but I’d be on the side of BC on this one.
So I’ll try and attend the next meeting on the NewCal project. Perhaps more information will be forthcoming on the proposal. But nothing has been decided, the council isn’t even fully informed on the subject it sounds like.
On a side note, I liked your historical link Paul about Armory history. I had heard something similar but never did the research. Thank you for the interesting read.
Fig, no deal has yet been made by the City in accepting or receiving conveyance of the Armory. Arrangements as to terms for acquisition certainly can be negotiated.
Insofar as more dense housing construction, many if not most Newtonians are fed up with the city constantly promoting these to the detriment of our quality of life — and with no say in it by current city residents. The city has recently absorbed quite a bit with plans for substantially more already in place. We’ll do just fine without Armory dense housing. And insofar as morphing the senior center into a larger “community center”, most Newtonians were surprised to learn of such and are opposed — aside from learning that the current six potential designated sites are all parks.
The combination of an Armory (senior center) and existing Senior Center will more than suffice to the satisfaction of most Newtonians, including seniors, who oppose its growing grandiosity into “NewCAL” — with the added substantial financial burden to be taken into account year after year — beyond its initial construction.
Jim:
Perhaps you are right, and the Commonwealth will recognize a senior center as an appropriate use and give us a break from fmv. But neither one of us know if that is true. But In the absence of facts, you are using it as a straw man to support the idea that it is a replacement for the other sites. I’m not saying that couldn’t be true, I’m just saying I don’t know, and that significant challenges would exist. And you don’t know either,
My post was attempting to persuade that the focus should be on the need and the programming, not the site. Not yet. Perhaps that work to examine the need and the programming and thus the required space has been done and shared but absent that it is tough for me to support anything.
We are all flying blind and getting frustrated by the fact that there are difference of opinion in the absence of said facts.
I look forward to more facts. I doubt I have much more to say until then.
(For the record we will have reached peak Village14 when someone suggests building over the pike for the location of the senior center.)
Good night all.
Fig, if I’m (we’re) flying blind — which to some extent may be true — I assure you the city is flying more blind, and at taxpayer expense. Their NewCAL ‘site selection’ process is a charade, from being shamed out of Cold Spring Park to another park, with less political clout — pitting area against area. Heck, the city is flying blind as to what ‘NewCAL’ is even to be, a more limited senior center to grandiose all purpose ‘community center’. Only to find the inevitable down the road, it will be shamed out of ALL parks. So, IMHO the Armory, combined with the old senior center, is likely their best landing strip if they want to keep ‘NewCAL’ alive, with a modicum of fiscal reality.
p.s., over the pike is a non-starter due to the significant increased height required by the adjacent railroad line
Fignewtonville has it exactly write when s/he says: “The focus should be on the need and the programming, not the site.” As I said in an earlier post:
“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.”
Read more: Mission creep at NewCAL | Village 14 https://village14.com/2019/07/08/mission-creep-at-newcal/#ixzz5wI6cKkjs
The next step for the Mayor is to fix the process for determining the program, with an appropriate, thoughtful, and transparent process that allows input and review by interested members of the public and then advice and consent from the Council. Siting decisions should follow that. Starting over is probably a good way to proceed, if the mayor really would like to get this project done during her term(s) of office. If she chooses not to restart, the project will be stalled by acrimony and litigation, further municipal and private resources will be wasted, and good will that is needed for other municipal priorities will be squandered. This project can either proceed like Mayor Mann’s library or like Mayor Cohen’s NNHS, with the Citywide pride that accompanied the former or the discontent that accompanied the latter. Please, let it be the former!
Jim, the Pike thing was a joke. It is insanely expensive to build over the pike.
How do you know Cold Spring Park was the preferred site? I doubt that actually.
Fig nailed it: Silly season indeed.
We have a housing crisis in eastern Massachusetts and in Newton. And we have a global climate crisis, worsened by suburban sprawl. If viable, the armory should be used for affordable housing.
Once again, if the process is started all over again as Paul has suggested, exactly how, what is the mechanism, for getting “interested” members of the public notified and involved. There seems to be the assumption that there was no effort to inform and involve the public up to this point. And further that there has been no public involvement in the process up to this point either.
Hi, the process re the program does not need to be re-started – that would be a tremendous waste. The workgroup etc. spent a year going to different stakeholder groups soliciting input. That you don’t know about that seems to be a big issue. Perhaps the meeting in September will review the process to date to get everyone on the same page. I work in this field and I can tell you that the size of the building is not too big, this is what it takes. Nearby senior centers are 25,000 and 20,000 sq ft and they are not trying to offer programming for all ages. Finding a location is THE challenge.
PS I thought we were chilling out for the weekend?
You write one email and send it to every group possible. It will be important to be clear and direct about the mission and scope of the project in the communication.
Some possibilities:
-The home page of the city website
-The senior newsletter could have a complete update
-David Olsen’s weekly email
-PTO newsletters (if it continues to be a community center)
-Neighborhood listservs and Village 14
-Other groups that send out newsletters (Walkable Newton, for instance
-Newton Conservators’ newsletter
-Area council newsletters/communications
-The Tab and the Patch, despite their diminished presence in the community
-Other groups people may know of that have email lists
Other possible means to increase transparent communication: remove the acronym that does not indicate what the project is so residents who do not yet know about it will know what the meeting will be about. The acronym has caused confusion in the community.
Beth:
I wasn’t suggesting we start from scratch. Just that they show their work. Perhaps they have tried to do so, but it seems clear that lots of folks need to see and understand that work product and feel it hasn’t been clearly shared. And perhaps more work needs to be done.
It could certainly be you are correct, we need a big senior center and the siting is the big issue. I’ll keep an open mind.
And I certainly think the folks who have been volunteering to be on the committee to date should be lauded, it is thankless work that then gets criticized.
Anyway, I think absent the usual blog storm and noise, most folks have an open mind. But I also think based on hard experience with Cabot Park that park land is an emotional issue for lots of Newton folks. The best way to counter that is to provide as much info as possible as to need and programming.
Greg,
Silly season indeed!
The Armory is off limits for NewCAL because of global warming.
ROFL
Greg – By all accounts, the city budget is tight. The plan to fund this large capital project is partially through the operating budget. So that means something has to give. Constituents have raised the condition of roads, sidewalks, and school facilities as serious concerns. Where will the inevitable cuts be made? No one has asked that question, and the city is not offering any information.
This may not be your issue. That doesn’t make it silly.
Folks, c’mon now. My original reference to silly season was blog related, namely that our threads start out focused, then start to go down rabbit holes, mixed in with creative ideas that are a mixture of wishful thinking and lack of facts but are fun to consider, mixed in with the sky is falling posts, mixed in with various political types getting their shots in, combined with the blovating of folks like me.
By the time we get to a few hundred posts it gets kind of silly. Conspiracy posts, false accusations of bias, weird jokes from past threads and the like. I call that silly season.
Don’t worry Jane, once some new information comes out new threads will begin and we’ll be the usual crack team of misfits we always are.
😉
It is a worthy issue of discussion and I agree that the budget question is an important part. I’m sure Greg does as well, despite the fact that he is a fatally biased concern troll in the pocket of big business and the capitalistic system. No one’s perfect…
Ok, I’m on kid duty so no one burn the blog down when I’m gone. Don’t make me come back here…
Beth -The funding mechanism is the issue. If this was funded through a debt exclusion override, I’d have no problem with the size at all. Without that, the size does become an issue, especially with the additional community spaces that add significantly to the cost.
My bet is that people who support this facility as it’s proposed work in spaces that have heating systems that actually function properly, windows that keep out the cold-and have no idea about the conditions young children, city employees, and educators work in.
So far any budget discussion has been on construction of NewCAL. What about the year after year after year forever annual operation and maintenance expense thrust upon the taxpayers by this new undertaking?
As a taxpayer, and a senior, why not stick with the YMCA and what we already have — and use the money to fix and maintain the roads and parks. Why must the government now be the center for and assume the role of providing for our “active living” (the “CAL” in NewCAL).
Or if the city wants to be inviting to seniors, lower their property taxes the equivalent of funding NewCAL. I’d bet the farm they’d be for that given the choice.
I like Mike Striar’s idea about taking the Mishkan Tefilah property by eminent domain. There is ample parking and an existing building that looks like it could be easily adapted. But I take Paul’s point that first you have to come up with a program before you start hunting for sites. I would bet there are other private properties as well that could fit the bill, once the city comes up with a list of programming needs.
Which is why the Armory does not appear to me to be a good site for affordable housing (and some of you may recall that I am all about affordable housing). The site is small and the building itself already occupies most of the lot. There are few parking spaces onsite. There is a Trader Joe’s and right across the street that has limited parking on site, and employees and customers use up much of the on-street parking (which is not a bad thing by the way). And while it is close to a village center and public transportation, the building itself would require significant upgrades and modifications that might make it too costly, compared with developing other sites. And, currently, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which owns the site, would charge a lot more than $1 for any other use, which only adds to the cost of adapting the building for a senior center there. All of which leads me to the conclusion that it is a white elephant. Or perhaps a pink elephant.
To Paul’s point, though accepting for the moment, without agreeing, that the program defined is what is needed:
The pick-a-site discussions, both run on behalf of the mayor and those responding, overlook the obvious costs and disuse resulting from vacating the City owned property at 345 Walnut. Those costs — sunk + operating + opportunity costs and not merely marginal costs — should be factored in as part of what will be the total cost of a NewCAL initiative. Doing so up front starts to suggest more creative “visioning” approaches to finding possibly better paths forward.
For example, around the corner is the 61 Washington Park building housing the New Arts Center on which the City holds a claw back provision embedded in the $1 sale to NEWTON ARTS CENTER INC. Thing is, New Art Center is stuck in that they would benefit from better space but neither afford the investment required by that facility nor escape its embrace without help.
One imagined deal would do a swap and redevelopment. Swap New Arts into 345 Walnut .. rebuild 61 Washington Park into a 3 story senior center. That would support important Newton institutions, bringing a pair of properties both into ADA and fire code compliance and into their highest and best uses, and minimize changes in ground logistics surely to result from moving either of these institutions further away from a village center’s transportation infrastructure.
No doubt others will see better opportunities to minimize the total cost and maximize the total value to the City that will follow from an honest treatment of the disposition costs of 345 Walnut.
An open embrace of Newton’s citizens’ problem solving abilities seems likely to come up with better potential solutions that a mere 6 all of which are of the same type.
Ms. Presumptious,
I’m certain the neighbors of 61 Washington Park and residents of that street would just love a 3 story NewCAL at that address.
Ted,
I’m certain NewCAL planners and Newton taxpayers would love to pay the many millions of dollars in acquiring Mishkan Tefilah property by eminent domain.
Ted and Ms. Presumptious,
Killing two birds with one stone, or solving two issues with one plan, the existing Walnut Street Senior Center would be retained to annex the reduced size Armory NewCAL (already pegged by Ted as a white or pink elephant for affordable housing).
Although I don’t support a $16M+, 37,000 sf senior center, if one is to be built, it seems to make sense to build it on parkland where the park amenities that seniors could use already exist. Otherwise, you would just have to duplicate outdoor exercise facilities and parking at a new location. The athletic fields are mostly empty during the school day, and the seniors could use the fields during the day, leaving the fields for after-school sports in the afternoons and weekends.
As an alternative, Gerald Chan quietly acquired the Andover Theological Seminary in Newton Centre last year with plans to open a private school. It wouldn’t surprise me if he as other for-profit plans for that site as well. If so, he will no doubt need some type of special permit, so perhaps a senior center can be negotiated into those plans.
Sorry, I need to close down comments here, as I won’t be online to moderate. Thanks for all your observations.