Having just returned from the Parks and Recreation Commission informational meeting on the NewCAL proposal, I have several observations:
First, the high level of professionalism of the city officials was demonstrated throughout the evening. Josh Morse’s, Jayne Colino’s, and Bob DeRubeis’ presentations and responses to questions and comments were thoughtful, organized, clear, engaged, and patient. Likewise, the commitment of the Commission members, chaired by Arthur Magni, cannot be questioned. Kudos to all.
Second, the Administration made a huge blunder in deciding to hold the NewCAL Working Group sessions as closed meetings, along with delayed publication of minutes. This lack of transparency has led to widespread cynicism about how the Group reached the conclusions they reached. For example, the credibility of going from 145 possible sites to 24 sites (predominantly parkland) to 6 (all parkland) and then quickly to one park is strained. And now the backlash occurs.
Third, the standard of review in the P&R Commission Manual, i.e., “a compelling showing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, including both publicly and privately owned potential sites,” holds real weight in the eyes of the Commission members. On the one hand, you could argue that the Commission could just accept the 145-to-24-to-6-to-1 Working Group process as proof that the standard of review has been met. That might or might not be a legally defensible approach. On the other hand, absent a detailed comparison of Albemarle to at least two or three other city-owned and/or private sites, the Commission would face a difficult political decision in choosing Albemarle for NewCAL. The precedent the Commission would set would also be very troubling.
Fourth, the question of what NewCAL is and is not remains an open question. Is it a senior center or is it a community center? The description given tonight was that senior programs would get priority, but then other users would be free to use the facility in second place. When questions arose as to how that would actually be implemented, the answers were less clear. This ambiguity translates into real choices about the size of the building and therefore the site requirement. If, for example, seniors do not need a full size gymnasium and could instead use studio sized rooms for dancing, yoga, and other physical activities, the building could be decidedly smaller–and more sites would be feasible.
Fifth, everyone wants a new senior center. There ought to be a way for the Mayor to build on that consensus in a positive and unifying way rather than in the divisive manner that has been in evidence to date. Members of the public were saying, “Why do we have go through this turmoil?” The answer is, “We don’t.”
Paul, it would seem the inclusion of a gymnasium and indoor/outdoor full sized swimming pool does not render the Senior Center a Community Center. Rather, it renders it an Athletic Center.
The one problem that bothers me is the loss of the summer
pool facility. No one wants to swim indoors during the summer
months at Albemarle. An indoor pool would never accommodate
the same volume of swimmers.
Thanks Paul for following this issue closely. The seniors need
their own place. Somewhere easy to access with adequate parking
and a quiet home away from home atmosphere.
A multigenerational facility set in a very busy location like
Albemarle is not what older seniors need.
According to Bob, the pool would be an indoor-outdoor pool, with a retractable bubble top for the summer.
This is a $9 million item (above the $16 million for NewCAL) that would be moved up from beyond five years in the city’s Capital Improvement Plan to being built simultaneously with NewCAL. There was no discussion of whether that $9 million would supplant another project in the five-year CIP or would be additive.
The cost makes no sense. Given that the Newton North pool is
so close and mostly empty.
Like others say, this project is a multigenerational athletic complex, not a senior center.
As a comparison, the Cabot Park senior apartment building has a pool next to Cabot Park. When walking by I never see anyone
using it.
When is the Newton North pool open to community swim?
“Swimming hours vary, Lap Swim Program runs for three sessions of approximately 8 weeks. Registration is required for each session. The number of participants is limited to a total of approximately 40 each session, this includes the participants that joined in October for all three sessions up front. Lap Swim hours are Monday through Thursday 9:00PM to 9:45PM. until the facility opens on weekends in November Saturday 12Noon to 2PM and 4PM to 5:30PM, Sunday 1PM to 3PM and 4PM to 5:00PM. In December weekend hours are extended on Sundays until 7:00PM. The facility is closed during public school vacations, holidays, easter weekend. Final weekend will be last weekend in April. When Newton Bluefish have a home swim meet, lap swimming is cancelled the second half of the day.”
Quoting from this website: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/parks/indoor_recreation_centers/default.asp#891
Some observations from last night
It’s clear that the of the six finalist parkland sites, five had pretty much been ruled out by the NEWCal committee. So it seems it was a lot of “Kabuki Theatre” that we were all put through as citizens were pitted against each other hoping to protect their park. Additionally the Parks and Rec Commission made it abundantly clear that the other five parks would never have been on the table.
In my opinion, the Gath Pool is being used as a carrot to entice Parks and Recs to entertain Albemarle…and for about 1/2 of the Commission Members it seems to be working.
While there were quite a few Seniors in the room, the ones who were most vocal were not supportive of NewCal or the Albemarle location. One spoke eloquently about the inappropriateness of a location that is so far from amenities and has no public transit. Another spoke eloquently about it being an inappropriate use of parkland.
While the Committee spent a lot of time in the beginning talking about the need for a new Senior Center, to a person in the room everyone seemed to support a new Senior Center. Just not on parkland and not at Albemarle. I heard a little support for the multi-generational concept, but much more support for giving Newton Seniors their own dedicated center.
So many sites were rules out because they couldn’t accommodate a full size gymnasium and a pool. But when asked how seniors and children could utilize said gymnasium at the same time, Josh said that it would be big enough to partition it, and that they would need to do that to be able to justify the gym as it was unclear that it would get enough utilization from just Seniors. I am paraphrasing but HUH!!!!
I was heartened that at least half of the Parks and Recs Commission is not supportive. I do worry about the other half.
Last night’s session was a disappointing eye-opener for me. The Parks / Rec department’s own published Mission statement is this :
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.
So then, why is the Parks department not opposed to a 2.5 acre development in the center of a city paark? Because it replaces the Gath pool – an outdated and failing facility – that Parks / Rec can no longer afford to maintain?
Surely there must be another, hopefully better reason?
Parks / Rec website : http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/parks/default.asp
I think it’s helpful to separate out the community requirements for a pool from this discussion, at least temporarily, to see if we are meeting those needs or if we are rationalizing other decisions.
* What are the requirements for competitive swimming in Newton unmet by other facilities, for example Newton North? Does competitive swimming need to happen at Gath?
* What are the requirements for “fitness swimming” (swimming laps) at Gath, given the answer to the question above? Can those needs be subsumed by other pools at Newton (especially since Gath isn’t a year-round facility)?
* What is the detailed needs for seasonal, recreational swimming at Gath? Currently, both pools at Gath get heavy use during the summer, and I think would get even more use if the pool was better designed (zero entry, splash features, unified toddler/adult pool) and better maintained (temperature, chairs, changing facilities).
It would be a huge loss to the community if this recreational component disappears, and a huge opportunity if it is enhanced. Summer isn’t going to get cooler around here. Newton has almost no water features at its parks.
Gath should be awesome, but the community’s best definition of awesome.
The West Suburban YMCA swimming pool is available to seniors most of the time (at very modest cost, and beyond that can be subsidized in many cases). Did anyone point that out to Parks & Rec.?
And did anyone point out to Parks & Rec. that nearly 7,000 people have already signed their opposition to NewCAL in ANY Park? See https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
In view of the above, how can Parks & Rec. continue to promote the Mayor’s more than expensive and wasteful odyssey with a straight face? Pretending this to be a senior center is laughable.
I apologize if this was brought up in other threads but..
I don’t think it is necessary to have everything in a single location.
Why not build a two story Senior Center at the north end of the triangle in Newton Centre. A two story structure with a full basement should be large enough. The basement could house several exercise studios, cafe and store. The remaining rooms could be used for all other functions. There would be plenty of parking left to service the center.
If a gym is really require, why not rebuild the gym at Hawthorne. It could be used by Seniors during the day and the Nonantum community in the evening.
As a Senior who enjoys a swim every now and then, I don’t believe a pool is really necessary.
Paul – thank you for your insightful summary of the meeting on Monday.
My key takeaway from the meeting was – the working group had decided on Albemarle and then figured out ways to support their decision. They are currently in the process of doing a ‘feasibility study’ on the site after selecting it.
Many questions remain:
– What are the criteria of the feasibility study?
– Will the feasibility study sessions/discussions be open to the public?
– What happens if the feasibility study reveals that Albemarle is not a good choice, for all the reasons that were brought up in the meeting (traffic, parking, no public transportation, far away from restaurants, banks, etc.).
– Will they go back to site selection? Or will they revisit their additive requirements gathering/design process?
Roshni, …and there is a more immediate question, previously raised but remaining unanswered, having to do with money already being spent, as follows:
While the Mayor stated that Albemarle Park is not yet confirmed as a ‘NewCAL’ site, she advised nevertheless in her August 13th Notice that she currently is having the City “develop the [Albemarle] site plan with the help of the architectural team.” It would seem that her proceeding to develop the site plan with the help of the “architectural team” at a pre-site, pre-scope stage is a gross mismanagement of City funds, especially considering other city financial obligations and unmet needs.
It should now be apparent, by virtue of the massive uniformly hostile reaction to the Albemarle siting of a ‘NewCAL’ athletic complex (pretending to be a ‘senior center’), including the anti NewCAL in the Park petition with approaching 7,000 signatures to date, that NewCAL in ANY Newton park is soundly rejected — particularly Albemarle Park with its additional locational drawbacks.
The prudent course would be for the Mayor to scale down the athletic complex ‘NewCAL’ to an actual senior center and consider only non-park sites, be they in city ownership or not, including in possible combination with the existing Walnut Street Senior Center, and only then proceed with any outside contracted “architectural team”.
I think the residents and taxpayers are now entitled to know the total city expenditures connected to NewCAL previously and projected to be paid to the NewCAL contracted “team” firms already identified in the project website, NV5, Steffian Bradley Architects, and Bargmann Hendrie + Archetype, Inc.
Watching feed of tonight’s “listening” session and it might be going worse that Monday night