Confirmation bias–“the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories”–is a cognitive error often found in the world of medicine. It occurs when a doctor rather quickly reaches a conclusion as to the nature of your medical condition and then orders tests, and then ignores evidence from the tests that contradicts their first diagnosis, proceeding with the treatment they first concluded was best for you. But confirmation bias occurs in all walks of life. Being a cognitive bias, it is not generally intentional, but it is nonetheless real and powerful.
I think we’ve been witnessing an instance of confirmation bias on the part of our city administration with regard to the siting of the proposed NewCAL facility. It is increasingly apparent to me and others watching the evolution of this project that the mayor and her department heads reached a certain “diagnosis” and “treatment” about the scope and siting of NewCAL. Then, they systematically interpreted evidence they collected in support of that plan, ignoring evidence that might raise doubts.
I will provide just one example of this bias in a second, but first I want to acknowledge that the Mayor has taken some (limited) steps to reopen the decision-making process. In her weekly email, she stated: “Last week I joined with voices from the Parks & Recreation Commission and some City Councilors to ask the Working Group to go back and re-explore some of the non-park sites, paying particular attention to the Newton Centre parking triangle, which had initially been set aside because it was too small. . . . We will compare the advantages and disadvantages of this site and Albemarle even as we continue to explore City owned sites and private properties across Newton.”
Several of us following this issue viewed this statement as not much of a re-opener, focused as it was mainly the parking triangle, as opposed to a full scale review of the scope and program of NewCAL. We fear that this is just a “process” to prove to the Parks and Recreation Commission that the Albemarle site is the “best.” But let’s see. (By the way, I’d be delighted if NewCAL were built in Newton Centre.)
Now, for the example of confirmation bias. I refer to the West Newton Armory, a 30,000 square foot building that is being offered for sale by the state to the city. The Mayor has made much of the potential use of this building for affordable housing, but has also stated that it might be used for other municipal purposes. (The purchase price for the former use would be $1 and for the latter, $1 million.).
In September (around the time the Albemarle decision was announced), the City Council’s Real Property Reuse Committee received a lengthy briefing package about the Armory from the Administration. The director of planning and development stated: “My initial recommendation, taking into consideration numerous factors including Newton’s great need for affordable housing and the costs associated with improving the property for a municipal use, is that the property should be made available for lease upon its acquisition to be redeveloped as 100% affordable housing. Nonetheless, as part of the Real Property Reuse Committee’s formal evaluation of the future use of the property, I would encourage the City Council’s Committee to evaluate potential municipal uses, including the aforementioned request by the City Clerk for archives, storage and a polling place.”
That recommendation was based, in part, on the conclusions of the public building commissioner, also included in the package: “In closing, the Armory is a beautiful building with great historical features and flexible floor plans. The building will require a significant renovation for any change of use. The purpose of my inspection of this facility was to determine whether this facility and/or site could be used for either a Police Headquarters or a site for the NewCAL project. Both projects require a minimum of 2 acres of land area. Additionally, the building itself is too small to contain either program.”
Now, I am not necessarily advocating for this site for NewCAL, but I am suggesting that the manner in which it was crossed off the list is indicative of the cognitive phenomenon I am discussing, in at least two respects. (1) In the NewCAL planning documents, it is stated that the Armory has some significant challenges: “The existing Armory is a historic facility that was designed and constructed to stop artillery and therefore is very challenging to be converted to meet our needs, and it’s too small. On top of this, about a third of the building is underground with no natural light.”
I believe the Administration is so fixated on the potential use of the site for housing that they have ignored how those features are also significant challenges for that use. In addition, the characteristics of this historic structure–and particularly the tall narrow windows–make its conversion into apartments extremely impractical, if not impossible. (2) The commissioner’s fixation on the need for 2 acres of land ignores the possibility of taking land adjacent to this property (currently, low intensity commercial use) and/or sharing parking facilities (which are usually vacant) with the nursing home adjacent to the site. If NewCAL needs to be adjacent to green space, it, too, can be planted around the building.
In short, the Administration is so anchored on its preconceptions–for both NewCAL and the use of the Armory for housing–that it is dismissive of the former possibility and overly wedded to the latter possibility. How to overcome confirmation bias? Here is some wise advice:
Look for ways to challenge what you think you see. Seek out information from a range of sources, and use an approach . . . to consider situations from multiple perspectives. Alternatively, discuss your thoughts with others. Surround yourself with a diverse group of people, and don’t be afraid to listen to dissenting views. You can also seek out people and information that challenge your opinions, or assign someone on your team to play “devil’s advocate” for major decisions.
None other than likely the City’s chief advocate for subsidized/affordable housing, Ted Hess-Mahan, has previously stated on Village 14 that the Armory is completely unacceptable for conversion to such housing.
The best answer (economics and logistics) vis a vis the Armory, ‘NewCAL’, and existing Walnut Street Senior Center, should be so obvious, as I’ve previously suggested on Village 14, as follows: Combine a converted Armory to senior center annex with existing Walnut Street senior center, for a new total Senior Center, and reduce the NewCAL scope from athletic/community center to just senior center (and IMHO BTW drop the supercilious title “NewCAL” moniker for simply “Senior Center”).
Jim, Where’s that cite on Village 14 (if you know)?
Paul, here is Ted H-M’s comment under your thread, United we stand | Aug 9, 2019:
“Ted Hess -Mahan on August 11, 2019 at 1:19 pm”
…
“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).”
Here is my comment under the same thread:
“Jim Epstein on August 10, 2019 at 5:25 pm”
“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.”
I’m in agreement with Paul Levy that confirmation bias, insidious as it is prevalent, is at work within the confines of everything related to decision making about the new Whatever Center. The Mayor, along with the city council who keeps giving her requested monies for studies and anything else, has her eyes on an amazing Legacy Center and not much else – certainly not on the public money she’s spending and plans to spend.
On the point concerning the Armory, if it’s not suitable for affordable housing – and I believe every word on that subject uttered by Ted Hess Mahan – then it’s not suitable for a Senior Center, for the same reasons.
We deserve light and open spaces not skinny windows and dark basement spaces. Move on to another space.
Yes, and the coupling of New Cal with the Gath Pool solidified in my mind the City’s view of that space. The least-family friendly facility in Newton, the Gath has only been about fitness programming. That bias – extended in this case to providing seniors with more fitness opportunities – pushed the Mayor to try to solve her Gath problem by putting New Cal there. Meanwhile, a city this size deserves a normal, vibrant community pool. The Gath – the pool of rules as I like to call it – has never been physically or programmatically designed to be a community space where people gather to socialize or (gasp) have fun. The Mayor knows the pool is costing money, so figured she could kill two birds with one stone.
Thank you, Paul, for remaining vigilant to the biases entrenching this process. This line strikes a chord:
“Then, they systematically interpreted evidence they collected in support of that plan, ignoring evidence that might raise doubts.”
One immediate example: each day this past weekend, we residents (and our children, and those visiting the park) observed traumatic vehicular crashes at Albemarle and Crafts, the most dangerous intersection in Newton – http://www.newtonpolice.com/FTP/MVYTD.HTM – and the space through which every vehicle leaving Albemarle must pass. Evidence for why we need to invest in the roads and traffic surrounding this park–without adding stressors to them — is in ample supply. It’s literally able to be seen in the car parts and shattered lights now lining the streets.
I’m concerned that in addition to sticking to a foregone conclusion that the Armory won’t work (“the gym is so dark and gloomy,” leaders explained in NewCAL meetings) and that a city of 90,000 should only have one single senior center (“decentralizing just loses a certain something,” said those same leaders in another NewCAL meeting), evidence is being ignored that we need more investment in our open space, protection of our parks, and management of our traffic. We’ve learned that we need to replace infrastructure at Gath pool, for instance (a wonderful family pool, full of phenomenal life guards, waterslide and diving boards, seniors and children, all enjoying being outside together). We’ve also learned that our fields need attention and support.
What’s more, there’s been so much to discuss that we haven’t talked enough about the environmental impact of developing the only 17-acre tract of land north of the Pike, but the city’s plans for climate vulnerability, open space, and Washington Street cannot coexist with its NewCAL plan to develop parkland in an area vulnerable to flooding and heat island effect:
https://www.preservenewtonparks.com/s/Environmental-Impact-at-Albemarle.pdf
It would be useful to gather evidence, both surrounding the first proposal to put a building on a park in 25 years, and to understand what is truly needed for seniors in this town – as I’ve now heard from hundreds of seniors who do not want a new center at Albemarle.
We need to step back, follow the advice at the end of your post, and recognize through dialogue (and surveying broadly!) that we are one entire community, with holistic needs that can be met without division. Opportunities (like seriously considering the Armory as one potential senior center space) should be seen as just that, and not as subjectively uninteresting compared to, say, the fields of our town’s largest middle school.
Interesting discussion.
Can I respectfully suggest that confirmation bias can work in both directions. Perhaps worth considering.
“city of 90,000 should only have one single senior center (“decentralizing just loses a certain something,” said those same leaders in another NewCAL meeting)
Why?? I never heard a good argument to support this position taken by the city. We have 15 grade schools, 4 middle schools, two high schools and two libraries, in large part because we are a city of nearly 90,000.
A decentralized model makes complete sense. Renovate the existing center and add a couple of additional locations perhaps the former Newton Center Library and the a portion of the Hyde Center and continue partnerships the Y and JCC
Hi @Joan. Absolutely! But we don’t have the power of the budget to carry out our preconceived vision, so there is a greater burden on the Mayor and her folks to do this well.
Claire, I’d like to take a crack at answering your question.
Leaving aside the ongoing cost of some level of duplicate staffing that would be needed, multiple senior centers in various parts of the city would likely not be mirror images of one another with the same services and programs at all locations. And, contrary to what appears to be a common assumption that the current or future senior center(s) is little more than fitness or active recreational facility for older users, the services provided and available at the senior center are at least as important. For some older citizens those services are the reason for the senior center.
So consider Average Older User. Although a bit slower than in previous years, this User is not mobility impaired, is still able to drive and owns a vehicle. In addition, this User is still in relatively good health.
On a typical day, this person attends a Tai Chi class at 8:45 at a senior center in Newton Highlands. This User’s physician recommended Tai Chi specifically because of a recent fall.
The Health Clinic staffed by the Public Health Department weekly on the same day as the Tai Chi class is scheduled from 9 AM at the senior center located in Newton Center. The only significant health issue facing this User is high blood pressure for which regular screening has been recommended. The Health Clinic can provide the requisite screening avoiding the need for frequent visits to other medical facilities.
Normally, this User does not take advantage of the congregate dining lunch that is available at 11:30 AM at the senior center in Newtonville, but an unexpected emergency has made those lunches important this week.
The presentation by a senior advocacy company on Solo Aging is taking place at the senior center in Waban at 1 PM. Grappling with housing decisions brought on by family changes, the presentation provides a workable starting place with which to handle the challenge.
At a minimum Average Older User has to drive to four different locations to access programs and services that could be more effectively and more economically provided in one central location. That is assuming that all of the separate locations are not a disincentive to use one or more of the programs or services. A mobility impaired older user who needs to rely on NewMO or some other mode of transportation would likely not be able to access all of the sites in the same day. So they would have to forego programs or service that they may need.
Senior centers in communities across the Commonwealth offer a rich variety of programs and services. Only a handful of communities have more than one location. The ones that do typically have a second location to provide services to a specific demographic with unique needs. The NewCAL website under the Public Buildings Department has a tab titled Senior Center Info that contains information on senior centers and senior center programs in more than 40 communities mostly in Eastern Massachusetts, our neighbors.
@Joan “Leaving aside the ongoing cost of some level of duplicate staffing that would be needed, multiple senior centers in various parts of the city would likely not be mirror images of one another with the same services and programs at all locations.”
I wouldn’t envision they would be mirror images or duplicate services or programs. That would be grossly inefficient.
“And, contrary to what appears to be a common assumption that the current or future senior center(s) is little more than fitness or active recreational facility for older users, the services provided and available at the senior center are at least as important. For some older citizens those services are the reason for the senior center.”
Quite the contrary I don’t think of the current senior center as a fitness or recreational center. It is primarily about the services and programs. I know there is a need for larger open space for things like zumba, dancing, yoga that can’t be easily accommodated in the current space, the need to remodel and re-configure the current center and find additional space. But not for a full size gym or a pool.
@Joan, after exhaustively researching the “more than 40 communities mostly in Eastern Massachusetts, our neighbors” listed on the NewCAL website, using data from the US Census Bureau, only TWO of those communities have populations similar to that of Newton: Cambridge (118,000) and Somerville (81,500). Those cities have two and three senior center locations, respectively.
I understand that a central location for both services and activities is optimal for many reasons, but to compare the Senior Center designed to service a city the size of Newton (90,000) to a list of senior centers where over half the towns do not even have populations of 20,000 is impractical and, frankly, a waste of time and resources. If that same energy was put into strategizing how to divide services and amenities amongst two or three locations throughout the city (renovating the existing Senior Center, utilizing the gym in the Newton Center hut, adding a building previously dismissed as being too small), Newton could create opportunities and experiences for our seniors that minimize the type of travel and stress illustrated in your example.
Our city is densely populated and becomes more overdeveloped by the day; Mayor Fuller and the NewCAL Working Group need to acknowledge that while decentralizing the Senior Center may lose “a certain something,” it is better than losing precious park land.