Let’s take a break from the forthcoming primary election to reminisce about a proposal offered by Mayor Fuller that, ironically, brought about a tremendous sense of unity in the city. I say “ironically” because the unity that resulted was counter to the Mayor’s proposal.

Recall last year, roughly at this time, that the administration announced plans to build a new senior center on one or another of the city’s parks. Several of us suggested that this was an unwise use of public space and within just a few weeks, during a quiet month of August, almost 7000 people signed a petition against that concept.  Then, the city narrowed down the sites, designating Albemarle Park as the prime candidate.  By winter, following sustained and deep opposition to this site by those in the neighborhood and others around the city, including important legal arguments, the search process was reopened. Next, the city considered two sites, the Newton Center triangle and the existing Senior Center site on Walnut Street.

Finally, this week, we learned that the Mayor has decided on the Walnut Street location, which originally was excluded from consideration as infeasible.

While we could describe this whole adventure as a huge waste of time and energy, it actually was not. For one thing, it brought together thousands of people from around the city in a coalition to protect the city’s open spaces. The response is indicative of the strong environmental tilt throughout the town. That coalition is alive and well and, I predict, will show up at strategic moments in the future. For another, the various debates and public meetings indicated another clear consensus, that people throughout the city supported an enhanced senior center. I’m sure that many in the administration conflated the opposition to specific sites with opposition to the idea of a new senior center; but such was not the case. You could, after all, be against use of parkland while being in favor of the overall project. And most were.

Now, “all” that’s left is to decide on the specific program to be offered in the new building; what form of new building would best suit that program; where to put existing programs during construction; and how to pay for the whole thing. (On the programming, I recommend re-reading Marian Knapp’s thoughts.)  Of course, the Mayor and City Council also have to decide how the senior center fits into the City’s priorities in the post-Covid era. (Finally, can we please get rid of the NewCAL name and just call this what it is?)

(This might be a good time to remind people of a clever and thoughtful step taken by Mayor Mann when he put the new library out to bid. The primary bid document indicated a two-story building, but Teddy figured out that a “soft” construction market might permit a larger structure. So he issued the bid document with an “alternate,” an additional story. When the bids came in, there was enough of a savings to have all three floors, and that’s how we ended up with a more useful structure. Mayor Mann’s knowledge of the state’s bidding laws permitted Newton to get something extra for close to nothing. As we consider the current economy, it might be possible to use similar techniques with regard to the senior center.)