The Newton Patch reports that a petition organized by Neighbors For a Better Newtonville has collected 500+ signatures in support of preserving the exterior of the existing Senior Center building rather than replacing the building to build the new Senior Center (Center for Active Living).
According to the project’s Design Review Committee, renovation rather than building anew would drive up the cost by $5 -$6 million, add years to the project, and impose a series of unwanted additional constraints on the new facility.
The city’s designs are set to be presented at a community meeting on Thursday, Feb. 17. To register for the Zoom meeting in advance, click here.
A historic gem? Is that a bit of an exaggeration? It’s my understanding that the proposed structure would preserve some elements like the stained glass windows and echo some of the old design. Aside from that, I don’t see the justification for large scale preservation, especially given how unsuitable the old building is functionally.
It’s disappointing that the petition fails to address any of the points made by the design review committee. In hindsight, is there any consensus as to whether preserving Cabot was a good idea?
I looked at the presentation. The new design, imo, looks just as good or better than the existing, “historic” building. Nods to the existing facade but updated and more functional. Isn’t that what we supposedly want?
Newsflash: 88,423 Newton residents did not sign this petition. Clearly its nice that all people can be heard, but the same group that shoots down every change in the city, has been heard, and the building process should not be delayed. Delays in school building means that some kids miss out, and the same holds true on the Senior Center as there are seniors that need programs and faculties today. Something I’ve figured out is that we don’t outgrow being a senior citizen.
Yes a basketball court seems like an awesome idea as seniors welcome athletic programs of all kinds, and adding multi-generational uses will keep seniors involved in the community.
Spending 5 million to preserve an old building facade is just so irresponsible and frivolous.
I’m all for historic preservation when it serves a purpose, however, I think often it’s driven by an irrational fear of letting go – An irrational fear of change.
How many of us have commented here that after all the fuss, the development we’ve seen thus far isn’t as bad as we feared?
Forcing architects to incorporate a facade that makes the building less energy efficient, provides less space, and fewer services for the elderly at an additional cost of 5 million?
By not allowing our architects the opportunity to design buildings that best meet the needs and challenges of our day, we deprive our community of a building that meets our needs and deprives future generations an artifact of our time’s talent and shared experience.
If we’re not careful, can frivolous historic preservation actually harm the preservation of history?
Yes, the senior Center needs rehabilitation. However the present proposal is not designed for seniors exclusively. The new building will be built with a super large gymnasium. The goal is to provide more recreational usage for non senior age groups on week nights and weekends. The senior center will also contain a surplus of administrative offices and meeting rooms. Who will use this extra space?
Newtonville’s old library site is not the appropriate place for an oversized multi age group recreational/ senior facility. I do believe that a modest senior center renovation would be a better use of the site.
Hi All, just to respond to the earlier comment: the current senior center building is a contributing resource to the Newtonville Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Newton Historical Commission determined that an 18-month demo delay was an appropriate response to the proposed full demolition of the building. It is, in fact, a historically significant structure.
When did that 18 months start?
MaryLee, the NHC voted to preferably preserve the existing Senior Center building on October 2, 2020, starting the 18 month demolition delay clock nearly 15 months ago.
Also, in terms of timing, the NewCAL Working Group made their preferred option recommendation of new construction to Mayor Fuller on June 10th of 2021 after many public meetings and input from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Design Review Committee, of which I’m a member.
Correction – 16 months ago.
Just for a moment, let’s look at this at face value. Let’s assume that the group signing the petition wants to truly save the building. What would be the path to doing so? Aside from telling the city that they simply want something done, what solutions can they offer?
An easy one is the $5 to $6 million necessary for the change. If they came to the table with a plan to pay for it (grants, donations, sponsors, etc.) I could see starting to have a conversation. What if they raised that money, purchased another property, and donated it to the city for a senior center?
What about a place to move to during reconstruction? Can they secure a location? If this group wants to encourage the city to act, then how do they solve the issues that the city has already identified as obstacles?
Wait. The current proposal is for a building that is practically NetZero and, outside of losing the sitting space in front, preserves the look and feel of the current building, which is an energy dinosaur. It also is designed to contain almost all the amenities that many seniors wanting a new center have been clamoring for. Confession: uh oh. I think I got suckered into signing this petition, which contained no illustrations or other details.
I’m certainly torn about this particular project. I think it would have been better to place it somewhere else. The city made multiple errors here over 20 years. Multiple locations came and went. Austin Street. The synagogue at Webster Woods now in the hands of BC. Multiple large development projects (although the locations were not ideal for the largest sites I suppose).
Could we have combined it with the new large senior housing site near Whole Foods? Found a way to convince folks that the Albemarle Park project, with a new pool and all, was worth the loss of green parkland for a well used facility (ironic since folks are now talking about a larger Gath pool with a lot of the same footprint). I don’t know.
I’ve reviewed the plans for a redo of the current site, and it seems to me everyone loses. The historic building is only partially preserved. The inside is gutted and loses its historic library feel. The potential new senior center as a rehabiliation isn’t nearly as effective. It is more expensive and less effective. That’s not a successful project.
If I ruled the world, I would have sited this project somewhere else. But if my choices are a partial restoration of a historic building that doesn’t keep its historic integrity and provides a mediocre result for its new use, or a new building that tears down the historic building but provides a much better senior center at a more affordable price, I think I vote for the latter. Regarding a historic rehab and expansion, at least with Cabot, the main historic building is largely intact. Here, what is left is a Frankenstein mixture.
I’d want the new building to be open later, be more functional for Newtonville, and be a gathering spot with both indoor and outdoor public space. Programming should go until 8 pm or later. We need more activity in the village at night and weekends.
Again, I’d vote for leaving the building alone, even transitioning it back to a library or public meeting space alone, like Waban did. It is a shame that Newtonville trusted the city to care for this building and the city is choosing to repurpose it in this manner. If I thought there was a reasonable plan where everyone got a lot of what they wanted and the building was preserved and rehabbed as a historic building I’d vote for that. I don’t think that exists, as much as I’d like it to do so. And the building has been somewhat neglected lately, so leaving it be isn’t a perfect situation either.
Chuck, as an aside, I understand the frustration, but your proposal that those opposing the project fund the gap or don’t speak up isn’t fair either. The building has value in its current state even if you don’t choose to recognize it. Speaking up to preserve that historic value shouldn’t require writing a check or even having a plan to fundraise. That standard eliminates the rights of most of us to protest a government decision. They aren’t required to solve the problem of the senior center, as great as that would be if they did. This is a public resource and a public use, and everyone can speak their mind.
I’m not saying that they shouldn’t speak up, but there is a sense of entitlement in the city overall that the government can just wave its hand and solve problems. No, they aren’t required to solve the problem. But in this case, the city studied the issue and put out some specific blockages to achieve the goal that this group wants to see completed. I’ve seen other situations in which a group came in with their own experts to refute a conclusion.
They are free to speak their mind, and they did, and that’s great. But how are we, as the broader community, supposed to react to this when there is no path to a different solution?
Jane H:
Just being honest here, but the “look and feel” of the current building is frankly architectural lipstick on a pig. The original is a charming historic library, with a large center reading room. Cutting and pasting similar columns or rooflines on a structure three times the size may pay homage to the prior structure, but when you see it in real life, it will not maintain the look and feel of the original building. At all. It just won’t.
It is a nice homage, but it is a new building, very large for the site, eliminating a nice pocket park that was charming and used by quite a few of us in the summer months, even after the city took away the umbrellas and didn’t fix up the chairs. I hope the public indoor spaces are used by all, and that all are welcome inside. Because I ate a lot of ice cream on those benches with my kids and my extended family.
And while I appreciate the energy efficiency of the new building, you’d have that if you sited it elsewhere too. And if we tore down every antique building in Newton that was energy inefficient, half the homes would go too. That’s why we have MassSave and all of those energy retrofit programs. You could make this historic library energy neutral too. You’d just have to want to spend the money to do so.
The new building does certainly get the seniors a great building that will hopefully be very much a community resource. I think it will anchor the southern part of the Newtonville Village. But the negatives are real and should be fairly acknowledged, and lessons applied to other historic buildings in Newton.
Fig – I like red brick. I’m from Philly. I like the glass of the new current design that lets in sunlight. That’s the look and feel I like. Some bldgs – and this is one – are just too old and poorly designed and energy inefficient for retrofits to make any economic sense. As is, the old building is always going to dissatisfy a large group who want more space for various sports and activities, which was much of the reason for wanting a new center in the first place. As far as the rest is concerned, and overall, you and I are just going to disagree. And maybe the petition deliberately went out without the image of the current design. Who know. But I signed that petition too quickly. So subtract one from the total.
@Jane, I’ll take your place on the petition. The current building is very useable and to tear it down strictly for convenience or to save some money in construction costs doesn’t fit with the ideals of many citizens besides those who signed the petition. In the future people will be wondering why buildings like this were used to fill up landfills when they could’ve been improved and retained. Next time you may want to do a little research before you sign up
JJ – I did plenty of research, thank you. Just came to a different conclusion. You are welcome to have my spot.
The new building’s design connects nicely with the main library.
I’d like to share my perspective on the façade preservation discussion for the NewCAL project. I serve on Newton’s Design Review Committee (DRC) and joined with my colleagues to unanimously vote for replacement of the existing building, including its Walnut Street façade.
Activities of public bodies are all about evaluating and managing competing interests, and everything about NewCAL illustrates this.
Start with building program — should we create a modest building where seniors can get a hot lunch and play mah jong, or should we aspire for something much more robust that includes counseling, art classes, lectures, fitness activities, and more?
Then we consider building siting. Should it go on open space on the town periphery vs. city center parking lots vs. an existing building site? We all work to balance tradeoffs to create the highest value for the most people.
The City ultimately chose this site and this program, not because site and program were perfect but because decision-makers concluded they represented the optimal balance of competing needs and interests.
The DRC was presented with this program, at this site, and we have spent much of the past year with the project architect in open meetings, weighing renovation/expansion vs. all-new.
I come at this with a respect for preservation, as one aspect to balance within the problem-solving matrix. While on School Committee I came down in support of the replacement of Angier and Zervas, while I advocated for the renovation/expansion of Cabot, choosing in each case based upon the unique balance of interests I thought these decisions represented. With this mindset I’ve concluded that all-new is the optimal choice for NewCAL.
I won’t exhaustively review our process, but I want to illustrate one of the decision paths that led me away from preserving the existing façade, which on a gut level I initially supported:
Some important program goals:
• Street-level first floor, which will facilitate access for a senior population;
• Maximum daylight for interior spaces, meaning that the building will not have a basement.
If first floor programming is at street level, then the current front door, which now enters onto a floor that is 6 feet above the street, will need exterior and interior ramping to use. This will consume considerable square footage. If it is no longer used as the main front door, and a village friendly door at the corner of Highland and Walnut is used, then this grand front entry will lead to nowhere in particular. To me this represents a severe compromise to budget, program, and functionality.
Setting the main level at +6 feet, in addition to requiring ramps etc. to access the main level from the street, will raise the building height while we are working hard to keep it lower.
Also, if there is no basement behind the existing facade, the current high basement level windows will be at thigh-level for those on the ground floor. This would be a very peculiar attribute.
We all weigh trade-offs differently and I’m not asserting that replacement of the façade is the only obvious and defendable choice. I recognize that there are those who prioritize the façade preservation well above all other considerations, and for them we are making a poor choice. What I want to emphasize is that the designers, the NewCAL working group and the DRC have gone through an extensive, deliberative process of weighing the positive and negative aspects of each decision path. We’ve done it in a very public setting for the past year, and we’ve concluded that the needs of this project and the community it supports are best served in a new building, unconstrained by the limitations imposed by the existing façade.
I hope and expect that as more people engage with the details of the tradeoffs we weighed, many who have fondness and regard for the existing building and façade will nevertheless, like me, be able to get behind a full replacement.
Thank you.
For me and many other Newtonville residents who attended the Dec. public hearing the new proposal is simply too big for the existing site. What amazed me was the scope of the new building with a very large gymnasium. One that is designed to be rented out to non senior age groups on weekends and evenings. This changes the dynamic of the present senior center. What the administration is proposing is a multi generational recreation center. It will not be a special place for older residents a place to call their own.
I would suggest that the city use the Albemarle site to build a swimming/ recreational gym facility. This could be a year round activity center for all ages with ample parking.
Yes rebuild the senior center in a way appropriate to the site. Allow seniors to have adequate control over the programs they want most.
First, let me invite you all to apply to serve on the Council on Aging. It is great to see so many people engaging with issues to promote healthy aging in Newton! Second, I will note that the Council on Aging voted unanimously for the new building approach vs the reno/addition.
Several COA members/friends have participated in the various working groups and this has been a long, public, deliberative process. Thanks to @Steve S for the description of the Design Review Committee’s deliberative, thoughtful process. Contrary to what some have suggested, nothing re NewCal has been done or decided in back rooms and there are not any secret plans to rent out the facility or use it for some other purpose.
I remain puzzled by why some people have such a hard time believing we would like a gym for programming? A gym allows more programming that encourages physical activity, it could be used for large community gatherings (when those are safe to hold), and will have an indoor walking trail which will be great in bad weather. The latest drawings show that the building will be something the entire city can be proud of. Why on earth do 500+ want to delay the process for years, escalate costs, reduce the functionality of the space, and make parking a nightmare with the add/reno approach?
There are many negatives related to the proposed municipal building at 345 Walnut St.
1. The building was originally designed for a larger site. It really doesn’t fit in Newtonville.
2. The City rejected at 20 other sites, in part, because the project was too big. The smallest of those lots was two times the size of 345 Walnut St.
3. 31 parking spaces is grossly inadequate. The overflow will take needed spaces intended to support village businesses.
4. The COA will have limited use of this 46,000 sq ft facility.
5. People are living longer and there are more seniors, disdainfully described at the last presentation as the “rocking chair set”. This facility is not designed for older seniors.
6. More at another time.
Peter:
Are you saying this because you want to preserve the building, or want a different site? Most of your issues are not solved by a rehabilitation of the current building. If you have a different site for the Senior Center, probably best to mention that so a direct comparison could be accomplished.
As for your points:
1) It definitely does seem like the building is very large for the site. No argument there. But the other larger sites were all rejected, some with large protests (Save our Park! etc).
2) I think you are advocated for a smaller project with this point, which contradicts your other points a bit. But how this compares to the other rejected sites, while interesting, is only part of the discussion. The city seems to have zero appetite for taking over park land or even parking lots, for this Senior Center. Also, the other sites were rejected for a whole host of reasons, not just size.
3) Here is where you lose me. 31 parking spaces, plus the nearby parking on the side streets (which can be made into 2 hour parking), plus the very much underutilized parking in the public Austin Street Lot less than half a block away. Worried about younger folks parking in the lot? Make a senior center sticker for folks older than 60. I’m sure there are ways to make sure those 31 spaces go to folks who need them. So while parking isn’t ideal, I personally wouldn’t describe it as “grossly inadequate”.
4) I don’t know why you think this is true. The COA gets first dibs on the space. The fact that it will be able to be used by the wider community if seniors don’t want the space at that time is just good community planning. It is also how other communities run their public spaces. Perhaps the COA folks could speak to this, since this particular talking point seems to have gained a lot of traction, and it sounds like a scare tactic more than a factual point to me. Let’s get the facts.
5) Again, says who? I’d like the building to be elsewhere, but the entire purpose of it as designed is to benefit seniors. Is there a particular definition of seniors you are using? Older than 70? Older than 80? The most persuasive reason to not keep the original building is the raised first floor, which wouldn’t work for older seniors either and is the biggest weakness in the current building. Perhaps some of the designers of the current building could speak to this as well. From what I see, it seems to be designed to please active seniors (gym, indoor walking track, exercise rooms) as well as older seniors (art rooms, meeting rooms) less inclined to participate in exercise. What am I missing?
6) Happy to listen and comment when you post again.
@Fig
Just a reminder to pump the breaks on that “underutilized Austin St lot” comment- we’re in a pandemic. I haven’t been to any of the stores- not once- since March 2020. I’m not the only one and others have merely cut back significantly. We’ll see what utilization looks like when we get back to normal, whatever and whenever that is.
Alec:
Fair enough. I’ve also admitted previously that the Shaw’s lot is way more active than it would be if they were towing. So if that lot got redeveloped it would likely make the Austin Street lot far busier. But as of right now it has a ton of excess capacity. The loss of CVS to the north side of the Pike also took away a heavy user of parking too.
I do wish they would re-stripe it to make the spaces a bit bigger.
But I do acknowledge that the pandemic sometimes makes it hard to tell if the facts on the ground are permanent or temporary. And if the new senior center was a massive success and highly used, it could cause a parking crunch during the busiest times. But Peter described it as “grossly inadequate”, which was what I took issue with.
On a side note, my recollection is that Neighbors for a Better Newtonville also opposed other projects in Newtonville. Does anyone from the group want to comment on the Old CVS/Yoga Studio project? Curious as to their thoughts on that one.
FYI, if you would like to sign the Council on Aging’s petition supporting the new building and process, please do. Here is the link:
https://chng.it/Y6kkZvNHFK
It seems absurd, but I guess we’re at the stage of an important, needed public project in Newton where we need signatures to demonstrate community support. Please help.