Thursday night (3/24/22) the Newton Historic Commission will vote on whether to “landmark” the Newton Senior Center building on Walnut St in Newtonville.
This vote is the latest wrinkle in the years long process to build a new Senior Center. Plans for the new Senior Center (NewCAL) began four years ago and it has been a bumpy road. The first plan for ‘NewCal’ proposed building it at the site of the Garth pool in Ablemarle. After lots of community push-back, that plan was withdrawn. In 2020 after more public meetings and discussions the NewCal Working Group announced that the new plan was to rebuild the existing Senior Center.
In June 2021 the Working Group released this detailed Feasibility Study of the proposal to rebuild the facility. Public meetings and the planning process continued with much of the detailed design work being done through January of this year. In January a citizens group organized a petition drive, and collected 500+ signatures, to put a halt on the proposed plan, and having the existing building officially ‘landmarked’ as an important Newton historical landmark. If approved as a landmark, that would slam the brakes on the current construction plans, send the designers back to the drawing boards, impose a series of very different constraints on the project, and force a re-start of a whole new design.
In response to the citizen petition, Councilors Tarik Lucas and Julia Malakie filed a request with the Newton Historic commission to have the building ‘landmarked’, which would effectively derail the current design.
In response to that, an opposing citizen petition collected 1000+ signatures saying “We need a new senior center in our lifetime”.
Tomorrow night, after 4 years and 270 public meetings, the current NewCal construction plan will either proceed or be ripped up based on whether the Newton Historic Commission votes to landmark the existing building. The Historic Commission will vote on the item at its Thurs March 24, 7 PM meeting. You can tune in to the Zoom meeting here or watch it on NewTV, but there will be no public comment on this item at tomorrow’s meeting (that already happened at an earlier meeting).
Nothing is ever easy or straightforward when it comes to city projects.
I am very sorry to see this go before Historical. Keeping the facade will mean a back door entrance for anyone using a wheelchair. If the current front steps are a standard 7.5″ height, 57 feet of ramping would be required for front door access. (ADA 1:12 slope plus a 5′ landing after 30′ of ramp). The distance from the front door to the curb is 54 feet.
If the ramp is external, it would need to be kept snow and ice free. If there is an internal ramp at the front entrance where would it go? Ditto for a lift.
Historical designation would be prioritizing things (the building) over of people.
Even though the ADA says a 1:12 ramp is acceptable it is actually quite steep for many, especially for older adults who are using a wheelchair because they are frail. A1:20 ramp is much more comfortable, but of course would require it to be even longer. If there is a ramp it should also be wide enough for two way traffic. Imagine how much time it would require for someone to wait to use the ramp if someone was coming the other direction on a ramp that long!
I don’t believe most citizens and taxpayers of Newton ever actually wanted NewCAL. It has always been Mayor Fuller’s vanity project, and I anticipate that when this ugly new building goes up–which of course it will, since Newton’s governing establishment never really listens to dissent–it will have Fuller’s name emblazoned across the facade. The uglification of my beloved hometown continues.
What Elizabeth said.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I for one would welcome this new design.
I objected to the plan to build a community center with a senior center at Albemarle, but that’s not what is proposed here.
This proposal is for a new senior center, which I think has a lot of community support. It may be called NewCAL, but it’s really a building designated to house senior services and spaces for activities for senior citizens. The current building was designed to be a library, and as such, preserving the facade eliminates any natural light on the first floor, and on the second floor, the windows are set high to accommodate shelves so are of little to no value to those inside the building.
I also like the new design and think it fits well into the surrounding area.
I too welcome the new Senior Center and like the new proposed design. Landmarking the building at this late date, after 270 public meetings and years of work would entail a tremendous amount of waste of money and time and ultimately end up with a much worse Senior Center and building.
I sure hope the Historic Commission votes down the landmarking. In this case it doesn’t appear that the request to landmark the building is based on it being one of the most worthy buildings in Newton for preservation, rather it appears to be an effort to use historic preservation regulations as a way to pull the plug on this project.
Can someone actually speak to what the historic landmark actually does in this context? My recollection from Cabot School is that at most all it does it restrict any type of development on the site for a limited period of time, something like 18 months. Anything else?
I would be surprised if the Newton Historic Commission doesn’t choose to landmark the location. I think it is certainly historic. But if all it does is delay the project for a set period of time, I’d think the city would just wait the timeframe out. And cities make judgements on buildings like this all the time. Not every historic building is kept.
That’s a lose-lose proposition, but that seems to be very common in Newton. Different parts of city government/commissions unable to work together.
I will note that this process has been frustrating. We are now talking about a year round pool at Albemarle, which would be on much of the same space as the NewCal building would have been. We could have had a year round pool and a senior center on the same site, with no teardown in Newtonville.
Or we could have acquired the full Webster Wood site including the synagogue building and built a new NewCal there, with a pool.
Or we could build on the Newton Senior Center site.
Instead, it looks like we’ll get a landmark status on the latter, and nothing for seniors for some additional amount of time.
@fignewtonville – As I read the regulations, once landmarked, there is no waiting it out. If the building does indeed become landmark’ed, then the current design plan would need to be tossed and any future plans would give the historic commission quite a bit of authority on many of the details. Here’s what the bylaw says:
Sec. 22-66. Review authority.
(a) Except as this division may otherwise provide, unless the commission shall first have issued a certificate of appropriateness, a certificate of non-applicability, or a certificate of hardship, no building, structure, exterior architectural feature or landscape of a landmark shall be altered or demolished nor any building or demolition permit issued therefor by the city or any department thereof. Alterations to the color or paint on exterior surfaces of a building, structure, or exterior architectural feature of a landmark shall require a certificate of appropriateness, a certificate of non-applicability, or a certificate of hardship, only if such color or paint to be altered is identified for preservation by the commission’s designation of the landmark
“The Landmarks Ordinance in the City of Newton provides the highest level of protection for properties determined to be the most architecturally or historically significant in the city.”
Jerry, you are correct. I was thinking of the residential review role for the NHC. From the list of landmarked buildings on the City’s website, this is somewhat borderline as a landmark site. Certainly historic. Eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Place.
Here is the thing (in my view). If you are going to save this building, it should be actually saved. But that means it really shouldn’t be carved up with a gigantic addition added to it. So if the ultimate plan of folks is to rehab the current building with an addition, you lose most of what makes it a historic structure. Don’t Frankenstein the structure. You won’t like the result. Keep it as a simple library building. Maybe move the senior center out and restore it as non-profit meeting space.
What I don’t understand is that if this was possible why didn’t the city reach out to the Newton Historical Commission at the start of this process and ask if it was a building that would be landmarked? Did the city ask and the Newton Historical Commission change their mind? Someone seems to have wasted a lot of time and energy.
I think the sequence was this:
* A year ago, landmarking this building wasn’t on anyone’s agenda
* The plan for the new Senior Center was publicly circulated
* A group of Newtonville folks didn’t like the proposed plan
* The launched a petition, collected signatures and contacted their councilors
* When asking how could this be stopped, someone came up with the idea of landmark’ing the building as a way to bring the project to halt.
* Two councilors filed a petition with the Historic Commission to landmark it.
* By law, the Historic Commission has to issue a yes/no decision
To me, it seems like the sort of thing that gives historical preservation (something I very much support) a bad name. i.e. its using the historical preservation rules to get a specific outcome on a specific project.
If a year ago citizens were asked to list their five top candidates for Newton buildings that should be given landmark status I’d be very surprised if this building would have been on many (any?) of those lists.
Jerry You missed the most important fact in the sequence. Most people were led to believe that the new design would incorporate the old front of the building. It was only late in the process that the plan was changed to consider only a totally new behemoth of a building only. There is plenty of reason to preserve the front of the building and retain one of the best looking older buildings in this neighborhood and not put in something new that is totally out of scale.
Jerry:
You ever hear the phrase “To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”? The Newton Historical Commission is a volunteer board, and it is filled with dedicated folks with an interest in historic preservation. I find it very unlikely that they will see anything but a “nail” here. It is an older building with a unique history, and they are being told they can preserve it if they landmark it.
This is how they are picked: “The Commission consists of 7 permanent members and up to 7 alternates. All members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Board of Aldermen. One member is nominated by the Newton Historical Society; one is a registered architect nominated by the Boston Society of Architects; and one is a realtor nominated by the Newton Board of Realtors. The remaining permanent members and alternates are appointed at large.”
3/4ths of the members are needed to make a landmark decision. I believe one of them has already been vocal about preserving the building.
I would have no objection from a historic point of view if they choose to do so. I think it is borderline and it would be an extension of what landmarking has been in the city to date. But it is within the rights of the NHC. And I personally like historic buildings, and I’ve enjoyed the outside of the senior center.
But if they do landmark it, they should follow through and preserve the building as is. To choose landmark status and then attempt to meld a large project behind the building or creating a fascade only preservation approach would make it clear that they don’t actually care about historic preservation. Can’t have it both ways.
And if it is to be preserved, it needs to be painted and cared for. Right now, it is looking a bit run down.
I’ll also note that the mayor can appoint members of the NHC, and the city councilors can affirm their appointments. If the mayor and majority of the council feels the NHC has overstepped, it might be time for some new members on the NHC who will not engage in the political process of the day. I wouldn’t object to that either. Everyone has a role to play…
And if folks are looking to someone to blame if the NHC landmarks the site, the two members of the city council, Councilors Tarik Lucas and Julia Malakie are the ones that filed for the landmark status. I think they did so thinking that Newtonville was eager to preserve the building, and are likely surprised at the larger response to move forward with the project. But without their petition to NHC, there would be no landmarking the site.
My only objection here would be if we try to somehow please everyone and meld the two concepts together. All you get then is a poor excuse for a senior center, and a historic building that is no longer historic. Again, lose-lose.
@Fignewtonville – I just took a quick scan through the public comments to the Historic Commisssion about this project. Nearly all the comments I saw advocating for landmarking, asked that just the facade be landmarked. What’s not clear to me is if that’s even “a thing”.
As far as I know, the commission can only landmark entire buildings. Even if legally possible, landmarking just the facade would almost inevitably lead to the lose-lose outcome you described.
That said, the vote before the Commission tomorrow is to landmark the entire structure, not just the facade.
Jerry:
I think the first step is the landmark the entire structure, but then any potential plan has to come up to the commission for approval. So potentially the commission could later approve major surgery to the building.
But man, what a crappy process.
“Tomorrow night, after 4 years and 270 public meetings, the current NewCal construction plan will either proceed or be ripped up based on whether the Newton Historic Commission votes to landmark the existing building.”
This is completely inaccurate.
Per the agenda “Request to nominate this property for designation as a local landmark”
Tomorrow night, the vote will not be on a decision to landmark the property. The vote is to accept the nomination. IF the nomination is accepted then research will be preformed and the presented to the NHC members for the actual landmark vote. I believe the window between nomination and a decision to landmark cannot exceed 90 days.
Also, another common misunderstanding about a landmark decision is that it covers the entire property not just the building
Thanks Mary Lee for correcting the record.
Wouldn’t it be awesome if V14 actually published fact-checked posts instead of these “alternative facts” – the perfect example of why Newton needs a high quality news site – true journalism.
Well Lisa, most of us are just trying to figure things out. And while I understand there is a process here, when the end result is exactly as Jerry says (just after a 90 day delay) perhaps you’ll be kind enough to return to post, perhaps with a bit less snark.
MaryLee, just curious, once nominated do you know how often the NHC decides Not to landmark?
I’m sure some of the NHC folks are reading. Perhaps they’d enlighten us regard their process. But it seems to me that Jerry may be wrong about the immediate process, but he is accurate about the result of being landmarked. And there is no way for the project to move forward until this is resolved. So…maybe not “completely inaccurate”, no?
@MaryLee – Thanks for the correction and sorry for the mistake.
@Lisa – it was an entirely innocent one and not ‘fake news’, just my carelessness/confusion.
Village14 is not a news site, has no reporters or staff. I totally agree that Newton really needs a high quality news site. Thanks for clarifying the facts.
Unfortunately, the City has not consolidated the substantial revisions to the landmark ordinance that were adopted in 2020 into the ordinances on the City website. Tonight’s Commission decision is “whether to accept the nomination and conduct further study of the nominated property.”
If the nomination is accepted then it would have to meet these standards to be landmarked at a subsequent commission hearing:
Section 22-64
(b) At or after the public hearing, the commission by three-quarters (3/4) vote, but in no instance less than four (4) votes in the affirmative, may designate as a landmark any property within the city being or containing a building, structure or landscape which it determines to meet one or more of the following criteria:
(1) the property significantly represents an architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detailing, materials or craftsmanship;
(2) the property is meaningfully associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the cultural, historic, architectural or archeological aspect of the development of the City of Newton, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or the United States of America;
(3) the property’s identification as a notable work of an architect, designer, engineer or builder whose work is significant in the history or development of the City of Newton, Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the United States of America; or
(4) historic events or activities occurred at the property that have made an outstanding contribution to, or which best represent some important aspect of, the history of the City of Newton, Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the United States of America.
(c) In determining whether to designate a property as a landmark, the commission shall also consider the following conditions:
(1) that the distinguishing characteristics of significance are for the most part original and intact or capable of restoration;
(2) that the property, location and setting is compatible with future preservation and maintenance; and
(3) the property’s context in relation to the City’s policies and adopted plans and the property’s surrounding area.
It would be useful to have the comments from the public framed around these standards. As a Commission member, I can’t (and won’t) opine publicly outside of the meeting tonight.
@Doug Cornelius – Thanks for the clarification and specific rules at play.
The ‘condition’ that caught my eye is
Given that the city’s current ‘adopted plan’ is to convert the building to a new senior center, it would seem to this non-lawyer that landmarking the building would be at odds with that.
… and yes, I understand Doug that you won’t respond to my comment. It was intended for the general readership
Doug, very much appreciate you posting here to give the context! For the wider audience, my understanding is that you are part of the Commission, correct?
And, as always, no matter what your decision, thank you for *volunteering* to serve, and for posting here.
I didn’t realize the landmarking requirements were so high. I’m curious as to what other buildings have been landmarked over the past 5 years.
And Lisa/MaryLee, I’m curious as to what your desired outcome for the building would be. Clearly you don’t want it being torn down. Are you ok with a project that builds a large structure on the back of the site but keeps the front of the building?
Jerry, just be clear I didn’t call it “fake news”. The way you directed that response to me might give that impression or that I was suggesting it was something other than an honest mistake.
I just pointed out that it was inaccurate. It seemed like a fairly important point to correct since there is an important distinction. In my experience, very few Newtonians actually understand the Landmark Ordinance and I would include a number of City Councilors in that, so if people are being educated, that is a good thing.
I’m on a roll this morning. Its barely noon and I’ve already issuing my 2nd apology.
Sorry for that MaryLee, my comment was in response to ‘Lisa’ who made the crack about ‘alternative facts’. I’ve updated my comment accordingly
@Fignewtonville “I didn’t realize the landmarking requirements were so high. I’m curious as to what other buildings have been landmarked over the past 5 years.”
You can satisfy your curiosity here: https://www.newtonma.gov/government/planning/historic-preservation/historical-commission
There are 30 Landmarks in Newton including at least three that were Landmarked in 2021. Theoretically, when a property is landmarked it in provided the greatest protection available and no exterior changes can be made anywhere on the property without the expressed approval of the NHC.
Ironically, 145 Warren Street, which is one of the three properties landmarked in 2021 is the last item on the NHC agenda tonight as the NHC will likely be approving a Certificate of Appropriateness which is was in needed (among other things if it is also an approved special permit) for a building permit to be issued.
In regards to your comment that “you clearly don’t want the current Senior Center torn down” I am not sure what is the basis of that comment. I have not voiced any opinion that I can recall, nor written any letters. I may have signed the petition as I generally value maintaining our historic places and have a bias for preservation, but I have not voiced any strong opinion one way or another as I have been pre-occupied with other priorities.
That last part was an assumption on my part MaryLee, based on the topic and your post. My apologies.
I wasn’t trying to lock you into a position, I’m more trying to figure out what folks actually want to do with the building if it is landmarked.
I also have a bias towards preservation. I guess I’m just worried about a middle of the road approach that produces an ugly combination of historic and non-historic structures and a smaller senior center that isn’t all that effective for the cost. I hate lose-lose scenarios. Either keep the building intact (and move the senior center site) or tear down the building and build a great senior center.
I was a strong opponent of the Abermarle location and attended many of the public meetings and advocated for a couple of locations in Newton Centre. I did not agree with the decision to locate it at the current site as I thought that was too small and selection was made because it was expeditious. That is short sighted. One of the reasons it is too small is for some inexplicable reason the idea of incorporating a full size gym became some sort of some sacred cow. When I hear people defend the need for the gym with the fact that seniors need a place to exercise and stay fit I think that is a false equivalency. That doesn’t have to be a full gym. A well equipped fitness center would require much less space.
But is the location is cast in stone and non-negotiable, the logical way to scale the size down so that it could fit while retaining at least the front fascade and park would be to scrap the full size gym and replace it with a fitness center and utilize multi-purpose spaces for things like yoga and palates. In that way I feel like we are sacrificing the historic building for a gym.
I would have preferred it was built elsewhere and that the current building get preserved and repurposed, either as a secondary/ancillary site for senior programming or some other use. But is seems this train has left the station and is pushing full speed ahead and I have just gotten too exhausted with so many things I see going on in Newton, that I don’t have the energy or will to invest much in this.
And I am now off track, because my whole point in posting was just to clarify the Landmark process.
Well, I did ask you the question, so probably my fault you are off-track…
Thanks for the reply.
MaryLee: To be fair to you, I think Jerry (and me too) were responding more to Lisa’s view of his post as “alternative facts”.
I think generally folks who assume that Village 14 is a news site are new to our little community. Although Jerry would make an amazing community interest reporter for the record.
And I agree 100% that having more folks understand the Landmark Ordinance is a good thing. I was clearly ignorant. It doesn’t hit too many buildings in Newton. Always good to learn something new! So thank you for that.
Good news – a 5-2 majority voted to allow demolition to occur.
arrogant announcements like this don’t bring people together and create further distrust of local government. Congratulations on extending the divide instead of trying to build a bridge
Not good news regarding New Cal. The city and Josh Morse hired a private group to discredit the historic value of our Newtonville library/senior center. What a sad outcome to this very contentious problem.
No one has outlined the cost to build and administer this multi aged recreational center. Our government should be ashamed of its tactics to create this new center.
@Colleen, I disagree and hope once the building is built and open you will find it a wonderful anchor in Newtonville. I am grateful to Josh for his tireless efforts and the very thorough presentation and to the NHC members who voted not to accept the nomination to landmark. By hiring an outside firm to evaluate the historical significance of the building what NHC might have learned in the 90 days of study was presented in 20 minutes. It was a fantastic outcome for the many, many residents eager to get a new building.
@Jackson Joe – since I’m not in any way part of local government, I don’t see why you expect my speech to be in accordance with how you think government should talk. I was expressing my personal opinion and represent no one but myself.
It was expressed arrogantly in my opinion. A lot of people didn’t think it was such “good news”” to have a new behemoth structure in this quaint neighborhood. For you to be hawking it your way was is not befitting a “gracious winner”