It is no surprise that Marian Leah Knapp offers a thoughtful, eloquent, and on-target assessment of the issues surrounding a senior center for Newton (in the latest issue of the Tab.) Marian is a recognized authority on the general issue of aging and she has been deeply involved in Newton life for many decades. She provides us guideposts for a senior center for our community and, in a manner typical of her gracious approach, explains why the current process is off the tracks.
I won’t quote it all, but there are one or two main points worth restating:
We must challenge the assumptions that are embedded in some discussions and planning of a new Senior Center. We seniors are not a unidimensional group. We represent a big range within which are greatly varying needs, wishes, interests and preferences. To truly and credibly plan, we must gather appropriate, expert-level data to guide decision making.
Planning for a new Senior Center must be proactive and not a fraught reaction to a plan that tries to fit seniors into another sector’s agenda.
Newton can demonstrate respect for its seniors by designing and building a beautiful Senior Center that responds to many different concerns and which is sited to serve the multi-generations of people age 50-100 who live all over our city. To realize an innovative Senior Center like this requires a lot of serious reflection, study and work. Do we have the will and capacity to do it?
Really, who could argue with this framework? But consider the implications of Marian’s remarks: The work she sets forth has yet to be done. This is a serious indictment of the NewCAL planning process to date. Several of us have been arguing that the controversy over this facility is not so much a matter of siting (although that is clearly important), but rather.a matter of the programming, and the physical design that would support the programming (from which siting is one derivative issue.)
I, for one, don’t question Mayor Fuller’s serious intent to create a wonderful facility. But I do question the manner in which this project has moved forward. Marian gives the Mayor and the Council a roadmap to a successful conclusion to this project: gather appropriate, expert-level data to guide decision making, accompanied by serious reflection, study and work.. Put aside the siting question for now (except for the understanding that it will need to be in a place with good public transportation and near amenities like grocery stores, pharmacies, and coffee shops, i.e., not some place that would make people feel like they are “out to pasture!”) Start over and decide on the programming in a rigorous and inclusive manner. Widespread community support will follow.
Glad you posted it Paul. Marian nailed it
Please also read “NewCAL and Data: A Guide” at:
https://web.northeastern.edu/rasala/senior/pdf/NewCAL_and_Data.pdf
Especially read the long explanatory Deep Dive document linked there.
Meanwhile, I will look up and read Marian Knapp’s article.
Yes, keep it for seniors (55 to 100+)!!! The “opening it for all ages” athletic/community facility was clearly merely pretext for siting it in a park. Since park-siting has been soundly rejected and all but jettisoned, KEEP IT FOR SENIORS!
(BTW, the Newton Center triangular parking lot which the Mayor has tentatively selected seems a good choice, albeit I’m wondering about previous reports of ledge/rock which might hamper submerging the parking lot below the new Senior Center building. What about the City merely acquiring and adapting the Citizens Bank building — could be much much less expensive than new construction and submerging the parking lot.)
I neglected to mention that the first step, of course, is to come to an agreement on the overall purpose of this investment. Program and siting then follow.
@Jim – during the last community meeting that I attended the Citizens Bank idea was floated. As I understood it, the cost to acquire that property alone would eat up the majority of the budget for the new Senior Center.
I think the size of the lot may be a bit small for our proposed purposes also.
Hopefully the Triangle space can work for all involved. We shall see.
The budget is $16million. I just looked it up. The assessed value of The Citizen’s Bank building is just over $7 million and the sq ft of existing building in 30,ooo. That should be plenty big. Building an underground parking garage would likely eat up all of the budget plus some
Peter,
Your info on the Citizens Bank bldg. is appreciated.
Any info or discussion on the ledge below the Triangle lot precluding replacement parking being submerged below a new Senior Center? Or does any reader here have info on this?
Clair, the assessed value and the appraised FMV are going to be much different. That is a leased up and stabilized building. Assessed value does not equal purchase value or true land value.
For those objecting to NewCAL, have you actually read through the WEALTH of data and feedback that they’ve gathered on the website Richard posted above? (If anything, it’s really a lot of stuff to go through, and I would suggest more summaries.)
I agree with the deep dive Richard referenced above. Yes, seniors want their own center. However, and I would agree with this sentiment, it makes no sense to spend a lot of money for a center that is closed in the evenings and weekends.
I used to teach seniors – no one attended my evening classes – older folks don’t like driving at night is what my daytime students told me.
There’s nothing that says we can’t hava center used mostly by seniors and then sometimes by others. High school facilities are used primarily by students, and whatever precious little time is left is used by others (and it is precious, they’ve had to turn down many, many requests as they’re fully booked).
Claire,
In view of your intervening comment, to clarify, underground parking would only be entailed with the Triangle lot so as to replace that lost parking. The Citizens Bank bldg. would not entail or require underground parking (because no parking is lost by using that bldg. for a Senior Center).
Yes, Jim, we are one the same page.
From page 10 of the Deep Dive:
“Currently, following Plymouth, the Newton project name is Center for Active
Living. Whether this name or some other name is chosen is as yet unknown.
Whatever name is chosen, the center programming should emphasize a wide
range of activities that are appropriate for older adults who are still at their full
physical and mental strength and for older adults with limitations or safety
concerns who must take things easier. The center should continue to provide and
improve services for older adults who have specific needs.
A key advantage of a senior/community center model is that there is no hard transition
from going to a general facility and going to a senior center. Community members, as they
use the general facility, can learn of activities for older adults and join in when they are
ready. Conversely, older adults may take part in activities with younger adults if that is
their desire.”
That echoes the article’s sentiments that seniors are not a homegenous group from ages 50 to 100 or beyond. You’ll need space for programming from younger to older, and folks will want to attend classes and activities generally within their age group (this is not hard and fast, but again, teaching in a group setting between a wide range of abilities can be difficult from a teacher’s perspective).
Page 24 of the Deep Dive. This is why more space is needed then less. It would be a great disservice to older adults to not get this right the first time and have to do this again in the near future because it’s too small.
“Members of the Working Group visited many new senior/community centers in
the state. Talking to building directors, there was one constant refrain: “We built
it too small”. The Working Group is determined not to forward a proposal that
makes this mistake. Hopefully, the city will agree that it is better to build large
than to build small and regret later.”
Beware: Albemarle is still on the table! The latest senior center newsletter has an’update’ from the mayor. There was an email given to get on the list for updates: [email protected]
@fignewtonville – “assessed value and the appraised FMV are going to be much different”:
Are you suggesting that Newton is violating state law by not setting the assessed value for its properties at the market value as of the preceding January 1?
If what you say is true, isn’t that a much bigger deal than what the “can buy it for x” price would be for that building? Wouldn’t it effect everyone who pays property taxes? And, if so, shouldn’t we be demanding better from the City?
Hold on gang. Some of you are already jumping to the siting decision. Let’s take one step at a time. Read Marian’s article again. She, an expert in the field, was a participant in the NewCAL process and yet reached the conclusions I summarized above (notwithstanding how some of you might read the “deep dive” referred to.)
So, who are these experts we’re supposed to seek out?
@Paul: we’re not the only ones jumping to the siting decision. Apparently the mayor & working group have too. The cart is before the horse. Marion’s letter is spot on; if they’re smart they’ll take it into consideration.
@Paul, I’m confused. The NV5 website lays out the rooms for programming (art, exercise, computer, etc) based on questionnaires, includes square footage guideline, etc.
Please tell me what’s missing in their exhaustive surveys of older adults, site visits in the state, discussions with directors in other centers, etc.
I don’t quite follow how you can conclude from Marian’s post that the NewCAL process has been fatally flawed. Are you saying that all the data that’s posted on NV5 is invalid? In what way?
@Fignewtonville I am not saying that the assessed value is the market value. It is just an available data point. I think we can also assume that $16 millions budget is also just directional. We aren’t building a 30,000 sq ft Senior Center and an underground parking garage for that
It isn’t that we are lacking in research about program. We are lacking a LOCATION for the new facility and upkeep of the current one while we wait. I am awed by the ingenuity of community members and the diligence of the workgroup and think we’ll get there sooner rather than later. But let’s keep moving forward.
If you want to learn more about the process, read Richard Rasala’s deep dive https://web.northeastern.edu/rasala/senior/pdf/NewCAL_and_Data.pdf or to learn more about healthy aging in Newton read the Newton community profile at https://mahealthyagingcollaborative.org/wp-content/themes/mhac/pdf/community_profiles/MA_Towncode207_Newton.pdf
I think it’s Marian’s contention that NewCAL should be for older adults only, and perhaps Paul isn’t stating it clearly, but he’s saying that the folks working on NewCAL have been biased by the fact that it will also serve NON-older adults. And from that, NewCAL has grown into this enormous project with this amenity and that amenity.
Where this argument fails is that older adults WANT these amenities like a gym, pool, cafe (some suggest having a daycare center because – newsflash – grandparents take care of grandkids – but it’s honestly surprising to me, I hadn’t thought of that).
And everything that older adults will use, other folks will want to use as well (just don’t do it at the same time)
No way Albemarle. The City is not about to buy an expensive protracted lawsuit, with existing law running against it.
@Nelson “Where this argument fails is that older adults WANT these amenities like a gym, pool”
In the published survey from NEWCal, only 4% of Seniors said they wanted a gym. Only 1% asked for a pool
@Jim: why would she mention it if she wasn’t still considering it?
@Claire, please list reference where myself and others can find it, that survey you reference
The six shortlisted sites are here : https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/download/site_selection_newcal/NewCAL-Weighted-Alternative-Site-Matrix-Final-Six-sites.pdf
Or how about looking though the over 140 sites listed here: https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/download/site_selection_newcal/2019.06.20-NewCAL-site-list.pdf
I find it amusing how folks try to reinvent the wheel and propose site A, X, Y, or Z based on anecdotal data vs approaching it in a systematic fashion that the NewCAL folks have done.
https://newcal.projects.nv5.com/download/program_design/2018-12-04-NewCAL-Questionnaire-Analysis.pdf
Mary, google assessed value vs. FMV. You don’t have to take my word for it. They are often vastly different. Especially in a hot market, and the FMV for commercial often takes into account if you are selling the building subject to stable long term leases.
So no scandal here. Just real estate basics. That buildings is worth more than its assessed value. I’d say a fair bit more. That is how this all works. You wouldn’t want assessed value to float with FMV, that would be chaotic and could cause real pain for some businesses in a hot market.
@Nelson: Systematic? Did they foresee there would be an issue with Albemarle due to Article 97 and thereby be looking down the barrel of an expensive and protracted lawsuit? If so, why is it still on the table?
@Pat, please don’t derail. Did you look at spreadsheets I referenced? Systematic, as in they laid out certain criteria in a point system and assigned points for each of the six shortlisted sites.
@Claire, that survey doesn’t shed that much light on what seniors want. I would be very careful to draw hard and fast conclusions based on this one survey.
However, I will grant you that yes, it doesn’t make sense to build a gym or pool if older adults won’t use it. One can make an argument that we need to be leaders and really suss out their needs, similar to how Apple anticipates and pushes the boundaries of what people *say* they want but what Apple really *thinks* they need (which, yes, can draw a lot of controversy at times).
However, the #1 request for multipurpose rooms was fitness/exercise rooms (see background below)
I’d be curious to see the usage of the gym by older adults at the Randolph Center: https://bhplus.com/our-work/recreation-community-centers/intergenerational-community-center
[For background, that same survey also included the following with 4% or lower (205 people responded. For types of spaces, 701 total requests, and respondents could choose more than one):
2% (11): Office Space
4% (29): Services for Seniors
4% (27): Unprogrammed Spaces
1% (10): Kitchens
3% (18): Trips
4% (24): Gym
1% (9): Pool
2% (14): Other
In comparison, the top two were:
57% (399): Activities with Multipurpose Room
17% (199): Dedicated Spaces
Of those multipurpose activities, the top request was 21% (84) for fitness/exercise rooms.]
Nelson,
Systematic??? Gimme a break. A lot of money spent for worthless charts — all for a pretend deliberation. (Just look at the results and btw, the so-called short-list has long since been jettisoned.)
and, Pat,
I’m assuming your question “why would [the Mayor] mention [Albemarle] if she wasn’t still considering it — is rhetorical. (What do you expect the Mayor to do after a giant boo-boo, immediately exclude Albemarle without leaving it in the mix to save face?)
Truthiness from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Truthiness is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the intuition or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1][2] Truthiness can range from ignorant assertions of falsehoods to deliberate duplicity or propaganda intended to sway opinions.[3][4]
Nelson,
LOL. The Mayor’s a politician; she made a mistake. Case closed.
@fignewtonville: Granted, continuing pursuit of this issue is off-topic … The law says assessments are to be at “fair cash valuation”,
M.G.L. Part I, Title IX, Chapter 59, Section 2A : “The assessors of each city and town shall determine the fair cash valuation of such real property for the purpose of taxation on the first day of January of each year. ”
Further, see section 1.2 of these assessor training materials provided in support of the M.G.L.
So I repeat, to the extent that what you say is true, you should be outraged and demanding why, for example, your house is valued less than fair cash value, thereby allowing you to pay less in taxes than the law says you should be paying.
Yes, but what does the law say about when? About 90% of the homes in Newton are being assessed at less than FMV, and the rest just sold. When there is a sale price I believe there is a true up on residential. Go on the assessors site for your house and ask yourself if that is what you could sell it for. I’ll wait…
As for commercial, assessing fair cash value is hard. Willing buyers and Sellers aren’t around the corner, and most buildings in Newton Centre are a bit unique. But it would sell for more than $7,000,000. Especially if it is leased up, which I think it is. Because everything in Newton sells for more than assessed value over the past 20 years.
I’m not trying to be difficult here, but I’m also not incorrect. And there is importance for an assessing office to be a bit conservative, and there is also not wanting to chase the market too much. And residential values sometimes have limiters to how much they can go up for year in some jurisdictions for assessing purposes.
@Nelson, re: “exhaustive surveys of older adults.” Not so. The “listening sessions” were not well publicized (not even mentioned in the senior newsletter we all get), and they basically resulted in a collection of ideas mentioned. There was a lack of rigor in the analysis.
BTW, the Mayor promised that there would be minutes posted of all the meetings. I don’t think the ones from this summer and fall ever went up.
Finally, your post on “thruthiness” is simply rude, implying that people here are engaged in that kind of dissembling. I cannot think of anyone here who is opposed to a well thought through senior center in an appropriate location in the city. Your accusation is not persuasive on the merits of these issues and mainly acts to divide people.
The process to date offers little confidence that we are headed towards a successful resolution. A shame, as this should be a unifying process across the city. Marian’s article is on point in that regard. I’m hoping the Mayor and Council read it and learn from it and help move things in that direction.
I understand that Ms. Knapp was a member of the NewCAL working group and recently resigned. I imagine she would be familiar with the process, and I gather from her Tab letter that she harbors concerns.
I appreciate the efforts by a working group member to provide a “deep dive” resource. However, even this resource as well as other materials posted on the NewCAL website point to many inconsistencies and insufficiencies of the process to date. For example, several of the reasons provided in the materials for striking off other sites – such as access to public transit, or proximity to a village center – should have, if consistently applied across sites, similarly knocked off Albemarle. So, the reasoning and review process is internally inconsistent.
I still have a number of unanswered questions. For instance:
1) While numerous outreach and listening sessions may indeed have been held, it’s not clear at all whether or how broadly these were advertised. Until very recently – late this summer, I believe – most people in the city, including many seniors, seemed completely unaware of this process. The mailed November senior newsletter had only a brief paragraph about the process todate, mentioning only that the Newton Center triangle is being looked at in addition to Albemarle and others. It’s rather scant on details. It is the first and only update thus far on the NewCAL process in these newsletters, which are distributed to all senior households.) So, how many people knew about, attended, or participated in these listening sessions or surveys that are now being used to inform architectural design? At best, it appears as though 300 or so comments were received and were used as the basis for the building program. (Given that we have a senior population of 19,000+ in the city, that seems like a very small number of responses. If I’m misreading the data, please provide a correction!)
2) The NewCAL website is poorly organized and it’s difficult to find things on there (and I’m a reasonably tech savvy person!) The Mayor’s September 26 email update promised that the working group would keep minutes for it biweekly meetings going forward and post them on the NewCAL site. I can’t find them. There are copies of materials presented, but that’s different from meeting minutes. (If they are there, can someone please point out specifically where?)
3) A review of previous meeting minutes obtained via a FOIA request and posted on V14 by another commentor several months ago, in contrast, had some quite clear minutes – though none of these have been added to the NewCAL site. Reviewing those (not publicized) minutes raised some additional issues, beyond those raised in other forums about program and siting: A no-bid $500,000 contract was awarded to the current architects – when the previous firm went bankrupt – so that the project could move forward “expeditiously.” Why the big hurry? How much was expended visiting locations and drawing massing diagrams for sites that were ultimately untenable from a Parks and Rec perspective – an expenditure of time and resources that could have been likely have avoided by properly consulting with city departments or legal counsel beforehand?
4) Did the city or working group consider engaging a different kind of facilitator to review program needs? After all, an architectural facilitator will invariably suggest a built solution!
5) The budget remains fuzzy. What, exactly, does the $16.5 million price-tag cover? Just the shell costs of the building? How about furnishing, fixtures, gym equipment, and the like? No one, to my knowledge, has yet answered the question of how the longer-term maintenance and operational costs related to the facility with its envisioned gym services would be covered. These facilities are not inexpensive to operate.
6) If Parks and Rec already has difficulty adequately maintaining other recreational resources such as fields and parks in the city, what kind of further trade offs will need to be made once such a new facility is up and running, once needed repairs or refurbishment come due 5-10 years in? Most other cities and towns tend to figure out a budget first before they come up with architectural designs.
To be very clear – I support the need for a welcoming and active senior center in our community; members of my own family are active users of senior services. And I respect the work put in by well-meaning working group volunteers with the best of intentions. But, they have been poorly advised as to process and outreach. Let’s think about how we can do better. There’s no justification for this process to have proceeded under a veil, and we should start over with a more clear plan for building consensus, and underpinned by the kind of expert data-gathering and reflection alluded to by Ms. Knapp in her well-reasoned letter.
Environmental E,
So the bottom line, the NewCAL process has been a sham.
And per Environmental E’s above comment, NewCAL has been more than a gross mismanagement of money (Newton Taxpayers should be outraged and this merits further inquiry):
“A no-bid $500,000 contract was awarded to the current architects – when the previous firm went bankrupt – so that the project could move forward “expeditiously.” Why the big hurry? How much was expended visiting locations and drawing massing diagrams for sites that were ultimately untenable from a Parks and Rec perspective – an expenditure of time and resources that could have been likely have avoided by properly consulting with city departments or legal counsel beforehand?”
Re:website: I’ve e-mailed [email protected] and cc’d Jayne Colino, Newton Seniors Director, about the minutes, website organization, and further outreach to seniors. I hope to hear back and see changes being made.
@Paul, re:outreach, please provide the seniors newsletter that you are referring to so that I can forward it onto whoever manages it. If you’re referring to the Newton Seniors newsletter, I’ve already made that request.
You make a good point – the NewCAL group and the Mayor can do a better job soliciting feedback from everyone, especially older adults. Getting this feedback is definitely an art as you can’t just take their responses at face value – are the questions you’re asking getting at what the person really wants or feels? What’s being left unsaid? Is the question or how you’re asking it biasing the answer?
Re:truthiness, c’mon Paul, don’t take it personally. Some of the comments (you can tell which ones) are definitely “truthy,” are not well-thought out, and have scant, if any, evidence backing them up. I have no patience for them as I have gotten dumber reading them.
I have no personal stake in this other than being a concerned, tax paying Newton resident. I have some time to go before I can make use of NewCAL myself (unless Newton goes with mostly seniors and sometimes others hybrid model) but boy! I’d LOVE to have it in Newton Centre. It’d be great in terms of location to put it in the Newton Centre Hut on Tyler Terrace.
I’d like for Marian Knapp to talk about why she left the NewCAL group, to communicate her concerns clearly about the process thus far (Paul, I don’t agree with your conclusion based on my reading of her piece), and for the NewCAL group to be able to respond in kind.
My sense is that she didn’t agree with the hybrid model that NewCAL is pursuing, vs the seniors-only model some communities have.
Nelson – I am a senior as is my husband. We were never included in any survey.
Any senior center can be used at off hours as the current center is. At issue here is adding space for a community building. I fear you’re leading this project to a place that will be rejected due to its size, when the community would strongly support a designated senior center.
Please note that the Albemarle site is the only open space with a school at either end and the Boys and Girls Club is across the street from the old HM. It is probably the most kid-centered open space in the city. It has three other gymnasiums within about 500 yards – one at Day MS, the old HM, and the Boys and Girls Club. Why would the city add a fourth gymnasium to this space?
@Jane, I’m calling my cardiologist! We actually agree on something!! 🙂
🙂
@Nelson, thanks for doing that. I raised the issue about information dissemination to seniors via the newsletter back in August. Other commenters have mentioned it, too – both online and in community meetings. It’s a shame to have missed this opportunity, as the next newsletter won’t go out until January – but perhaps that leaves enough time to put together a more thorough update and go back to the drawing board a bit on outreach and research. I’ve also inquired about minutes. I hope your requests will be successful! The tragedy is that this could be a truly great project that the entire community rallies around, but unfortunately the lack of communication and transparency around decision-making makes that really difficult.
I repeat:
Please also read “NewCAL and Data: A Guide” at:
https://web.northeastern.edu/rasala/senior/pdf/NewCAL_and_Data.pdf
Especially read the long explanatory Deep Dive document linked there.
The Deep Dive document is a major information update and contains far more than might be captured in brief meeting minutes.
In particular, there is extensive discussion of the rationale for a gymnasium both for seniors and for the community at large.
Hours of operation for a center are a critical question.
See the senior center data site
https://web.northeastern.edu/rasala/senior/
to get precise hours of operation for all centers studied.
Then see the summary spreadsheet
https://web.northeastern.edu/rasala/senior/pdf/SeniorCenterData.pdf
to see an analysis of the hours of operation by Total Hours, Mon-Fri Hours, Sat/Sun Hours, and After 5PM Hours.
The conclusion that may be drawn is that most pure senior centers have no evening or weekend hours and the few pure senior centers that do have such hours have only a limited amount of hours.
The only three centers that offer substantial evening and weekend hours are those that combine senior programming with programming for the community.
To the city and those of us on the NewCAL Working Group, it makes no sense to build an excellent facility and then set the parameters of usage so that the facility is mostly closed on evenings and weekends.
The proper parameters of usage are that the facility must focus on seniors but welcome the community.
This is explained in the Deep Dive document:
What the EBC (Working Group) was tasked to do was to create a hybrid senior/community model that is not represented by any of the 41 centers on the data site. The NewCAL center should focus on older adults but should not be a pure senior center. The alternative models (community, intergenerational, multigenerational) do not fit because there is no concept in these models of a focus on older adults. What the NewCAL project wishes to do is to create a hybrid center for older adults within the following parameters:
A hybrid senior center that is focused on older adults but welcomes community activities in appropriate spaces and at appropriate times.
This vision is the truly innovative aspect of NewCAL.
We all agree that we need to solve the site issue for NewCAL.
However, will the community please stop trying to cripple the facility by making it far less useful to seniors and the community than it can be if allowed to proceed as planned.
The plan for the facility has been very well thought out and is excellent.
Paul,
Your pointing out the flawed NewCAL process is more than proven where, immediately above, Richard Rasala admits “What the EBC (Working Group) was tasked to do was to create a hybrid senior/community model…”
And, Environmental E.,
Since you point out the “The tragedy is that this could be a truly great project that the entire community rallies around, but unfortunately the lack of communication and transparency around decision-making makes that really difficult,” I’d reiterate the tragedy of the City “wasting $500,000 awarded to the current architects – when the previous firm went bankrupt – so that the project could move forward “expeditiously.”
As my teachers would comment sometimes (not often, I was a straight A student;) , SHOW YOUR WORK.
With the exception of Environmental Engineer who actually looked at the website and had constructive criticism, and a few others, folks handwave away the data already collected rather than actually discussing what’s there and saying WHY it’s flawed or why you disagree with the methodology.
I suspect it’s because folks haven’t done their homework. Or, as just as likely, the hidden agenda is just to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery.
Re:NV5 website, I’ve asked someone I know who is a usability engineer at large tech company to take a look at the website to help reorganize it and make it much more accessible. It’ll be slow going as we’ll need feedback from older adults (the primary demographic, but not the only one)
@ Jim Epstein:
You state:
Your pointing out the flawed NewCAL process is more than proven where, immediately above, Richard Rasala admits “What the EBC (Working Group) was tasked to do was to create a hybrid senior/community model…”
Actually, as I have reflected on NewCAL and played a role in the Working Group, I have been impressed that in April 2018 Mayor Ruthanne Fuller and Building Commissioner Josh Morse had the insight to realize that the key to building a facility for seniors that would be open on evenings and on weekends was to include the community as users at least during weekday evenings and on weekends.
This was brilliant.
This was the practical essence of the intergenerational idea.
However, the intergenerational idea was only the starting point. The question that engaged both the Working Group and many current users of the Senior Center was how to build a center with senior focus that also had the benefits of community presence, namely, many hours of operation.
The result was the NewCAL Vision Statement that was finalized in January 2019.
Here is the full Vision Statement:
>>
The City of Newton’s goal, as an age friendly community, is to build a large, well equipped, comfortable Center to meet the unique interests and needs of older adults, both those currently using the Senior Center and many others who are not. The Center will foster a special sense of community and belonging for this growing group. This facility will be designed to optimize the quality of life for Newton’s older adults and those who support them, through welcoming, respectful and meaningful opportunities that engage, value, and empower older adults to remain independent and important assets in our community.
When spaces within this facility are not programmed for older adults, the goal is to offer well managed, quality and enriching community and multigenerational experiences for all residents of Newton.
<>
What the NewCAL project wishes to do is to create a hybrid center for older adults within the following parameters:
A hybrid senior center that is focused on older adults but welcomes community activities in appropriate spaces and at appropriate times.
<>
Active ageing is the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age.
<<
By designing the NewCAL facility with older adults as the key clients and then engineering that the facility will be open seven days a week in daytime and in evening hours is enhancing opportunities for older adults. This is the age friendly decision.
By choosing policies that do not permit a full set of hours can only be viewed as limiting opportunities for older adults.
Based on the NV5 data that I’ve read, evening hours aren’t frequently attended by older adults (and I can bear this out based on my own anecdotal evidence as a teacher and as a director who had about 60% adults aged 50 and over).
However, older adults WILL be able to use the center if they so choose in the evening hours. Many folks have commented that allowing all access during prime daytime hours for EVERYONE is not a good idea, and I agree with this. It should be used by older adults.
At the same time, other community members will be able to use NewCAL in the off-hours.
If you’re saying NewCAL should ONLY be used by older adults, then say so. I, and I’m sure many others, will disagree on this. Why spend so much money on a center that will be infrequently used in evening hours by older adults?
Also, it doesn’t preclude saying that for the first year, NewCAL will ONLY be open to older adults, and see what the usage is then.
Richard Rasala,
The follow-up comment merely persists in defying what the vast majority of Newton seniors want (and think the City should budget and fund), as per the title of this thread, “A SENIOR CENTER FOR SENIORS”, NOT a “Senior Center for HYBRIDS”.
What that comment terms the “KEY to building a facility for seniors” is really proving to be its IMPEDIMENT — as per the vast preference of seniors who, by a large majority vote at largest attended meeting, also prefer dropping the supercilious “NewCAL” label, replaced with “Senior Center”.
Just read this entire thread and I’m in shock to learn that I am, by these numbers, considered a senior. Objection!
Guess I’ll have to go sign up for the newsletter for seniors. Then again, as I like to say (with a nod to Ogden Nash)… you’re only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
Has the Working Group actively listened to the concerns about this project? No one denies that it might be wonderful to have everything in the plan, nor has the community at large said a designated senior center can’t be used for other purposes. However, the community has roundly rejected the use of parkland or other open spaces so siting remains a key issue that must be included as part of the process and most likely will affect the budget.
Assuming Abermarle is still viable, no field will be used for NewCAL, only hardscape (basketball and tennis court).
My hierarchy of priority is: undeveloped woodland/natural habitat > grass/open field (multiuse) > outdoor specific use (basketball, tennis) > building
This is not hard and fast either
The equivalence of hard top = grass parkland is ridiculous. If we made Newton Centre playground into all tennis courts I’d be pissed (and I say that as a tennis player
Nelson – building our Senior Center at Albemarle will only take away the tennis and basketball courts? That is your analysis? You act as if that would be no loss to the community. Pretty callous if you asked me.
Have you ever driven on Albemarle Road between Watertown and Crafts Streets? It is a video game challenge. In addition to the lack of parking and the hazardous nature of it, you have a steep embankment leading to the creek along with 100s of children walking around before and after their swimming, football, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, ultimate, basketball, softball, cross-country, tennis, and other activities.
Do yourself a favor and go spend some time over there. Try around 5 p.m. on a weeknight. Fun times.
@Peter Kay, I spoke carefully here. I didn’t mention any of the many other factors at that site. Any site in any proximity to a village center will absolutely have traffic issues (I drive Centre St through Beacon St and Newton Corner rotary daily – I know perfectly well how bad traffic can get)
I spoke specifically about the false equivalence between grass and hard scape, and gave a specific example disproving this equivalence that sometimes gets thrown around (also to be clear, not saying that Jane is doing that here, she’s cool
A comparison of a basketball court and a few tennis courts to a 38,000 sf building simply isn’t valid.
Newton Centre has 5 tennis courts and a basketball court – that’s plenty of hardscape you could replace with a building. Why not?
I’m 100% opposed to parkland. That said, I have a REAL issue with the fact that Newton residents have to pay to use those tennis courts in NC Playground
Nelson,
Hardscape or not, per prevailing state statute, regulation, and case law, there can be no NewCAL in any Newton park, including Albemarle. If Newton tried, it would face an injunction right out of the box.
(Previous V14 threads have thoroughly discussed this with the legal citations.)
A counterpoint is that Marian and Paul are wrong — planning and studying the issue has been done (see deep dive document). This isn’t that hard. Neither Paul nor Marian actually use the current senior center, but perhaps they will when NewCal is built. @Paul could you imagine participating in a 60+ indoor soccer league in the winter? Marian might participate in a writing or advocacy group if we had space to hold it. In the meantime, we are still 4 years away from a ribbon cutting ceremony and some of our current users won’t live to see it. C’mon Newton, be better.
Beth, if the city would abandon the the thing that is the major constraint….the gym that only 4% of seniors requested… it wouldn’t take 4 years. And I suspect indoor soccer leagues and I know writing and advocacy groups are already available (and in the case of the latter) outside the Senior Center programing.
You put a point on an issue that has been bother me. It seems to me that NEWCal’s ask are intended to expand the marketing of the Senior Center vs building to the needs of current users. That is what will delay the reality of current users being able to benefit from it
Excuse my typos…I haven’t had coffee yet today
Closing down comments before more coffee is spilled! I’m sure there will be more on this topic in the coming weeks, but it gets hard to follow the thread once we’re past 5 dozen comments or so.