Is it me or does $899k for the Christian Scientist Church on High Street sound like a really good deal? This is, afterall, a prominent High Street property.
Is it at a feasible site for the Senior Center? Hell, we could buy it, put $2 million into it and still save $2 million from the anticipated $5 million price tag, a portion of which will come from private donations. (Not certain of the private-public breakdown.)
I suppose parking would be an issue, but perhaps the adjacent lot could be used?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friends from Afar
-
-
-
-
A Confession6 years ago
-
Nokia Lumia 925 Review8 years ago
14 comments:
i love the idea, but i don't think you'd want a parking lot on high street. however, i don't think they need a parking lot, the church obviously didn't.
Can we organize an effort to look into the feasibility of this and other possible alternatives for a senior center site? I'm up for it.
depends if Ed Cameron is willing to admit there are better options than Cushing Park....of course, this is actually in his ward, so we'll see...
Mary,
Here are the central differences between Cushing Park and the Church as a site for a Senior Center:
1) Cushing Park already has parking on-site. To use the Church on High Street, you'd need to add a parking lot of at least 50 spaces, basically getting rid of any 'green'.
2) To purchase the Church property adds another $800,000+ of cost to what is already a several million dollar endeavor.
Councillor Ed Cameron
Part Two:
In terms of looking at alternatives for the Senior Center, we've been there and done that. I wrote this before the Council voted on the Cushing Park designation in a June 2008 blog post at http://edcameron.blogspot.com/2008/06/cushing-park-and-senior-center-why-i.html
Newburyport has been looking for years at sites ranging from the Armory on Low Street, the waterfront, the Fulton Street Pit behind the Fire Station, and Cushing Park--which has emerged as the preferred site under Mayors Clancy and Moak.
Site Selection Committee has worked for many years on finding a centralized site for services.
• National Guard Armory on Low Street---three different sites on that property were looked at. After 9/11, no longer viable. Senator Jajuga had committed $600,000 which has been reiterated by Senator Baddour.
• DPW property/Foundry on Merrimac Street was developed into housing.
• DPW site in Industrial zone is considered too remote and an incompatible use if the goal is to present an attractive space to seniors
• Baptist Church on Green Street later was redeveloped into two restaurants
• Cashman Park was too prone to flood, now used as soccer field
• Hope Church rented out space to a different use.
• Fulton Pit behind Fire Station would require $9Million to build and install utilities. Also there were environmental and engineering concerns.
• Port Rehab on Low Street decided not to build additional capacity
• Parking Garage on Green Street was not advanced by City
• Waterfront East and West has never been seriously considered by NRA. Also would be too congested during summer tourist months.
• YWCA was discussed with that agency but that site would not allow enough space for senior purposes and parking was not adequate for both Y and Senior usages.
• Cushing Park has been looked at over the years.
• Library was considered at Cushing Park during Library renovations planning but doesn't have enough space.
• Donoghue Motors space on Winter and Merrimac was converted to housing/commercial.
• Belleville Church doesn't have accessibility and parking is not adequate.
• Coast Guard Station would not work.
• Basement of City Hall doesn't provide enough room.
Site Selection Criteria has included:
• Cost
• Parking
• Storage
• Interior space needs to be flexible/expandable
• Proximity to downtown, not segregated in industrial zone
Cushing Park
I think Cushing Park is a viable site:
a) it is centrally located essentially in the middle of our city; some seniors may actually be able to walk there. While it is not as close to senior housing located downtown, it is closer to senior housing located at Horton Terrace.
b) the City owns the land, lowering overall cost. Site control is key to any development project. In the recent Request for Proposals (RFP) for a CDBG funding put out by the MA Dept of Housing and Community Development -- this is the source often used by communities to specifically pay for capital costs for Senior Centers -- the first criteria of eligibility is 'site control'. This is why the site needs to be secured first, then the funding pursued. No foundation, state or federal agency, or private donor is going to give a penny until a site is in hand.
c) The Senior Center would have a modest footprint and reasonable height at the Kent Street side of Cushing Park. The current playground would not be impacted, the current basketball court could be improved, and most of the on-site emergency parking would be retained. Additional snow emergency parking needs could be met by allowing parking on a designated side of a street.
Changing the Cushing Park designation to include use as a Senior Center is only the next step. Much work would remain to be done obviously on fundraising. In terms of design and implementation, the neighborhood and seniors are the most important stakeholders.
most of the places listed are disqualified because they've been developed or housing has been built there, which is precisely the reason why you should not sleep on this opportunity. again, why is parking needed, when there was plenty of parking for the church? why dismiss the idea out of hand with out even looking at it as a better alternative that didn't exist when you originally made the decision to place the SC at the kent st parking lot?
First, let's recognize that Ed didn't pick the Cushing Park site alone. He's co-chair of a committee that selected the site, so it's unfair to suggest this is all his doing.
Second, he deserves part of the credit in moving this project forward to the point where the Senior Center boosters can raise funds.
So I recognize that he's trying to keep the momentum going. No doubut, suggestions like these could be considered a distraction.
That said, three reasons it's worth consideration:
* It doesn't appear as a possible site on the presented list.
* The church wouldn't add to the cost. It would save money if the building could be utilized as a senior center as we wouldn't need to build one.
* It most likely would be ready for use considerably sooner than a new building.
If we had to raze the church to build the center than I agree. But I based my suggestion on keeping the church.
Bottom line, sites like these must be considered to achieve the political consensus necessary to get the park done.
If I recall correctly, a few councillors voted in favor of the Cushing Park site with the understanding that they might find another site more favorable.
I still consider the Cushing Park site a good one, but it's not perfect. Perhaps no site is, but some might be more perfect than others. We should keep our options open while moving ahead with the current plan.
Councilor Cameron--
Simply repeating the justification for Cushing Park doesn't cut it here. There is now a new possible site, which was not considered previously. The city should definitely consider this option. Also, while the city may have to play $800K for the property, it would be paying less than a Cushing Park facility because there is already a building there. Cushing Park would be new construction. Rather than posting a cut and paste of an outdated argument, let's consider a new option! Are we that locked in to Cushing Park that we can't at least do that?
One more thing, I meant to concede that parking is a concern. I'm not sure how often they held services at the Church, but the senior center would undoubtedly add a considerably more traffic to an already busy place. Not a small issue.
i would disagree, fewer seniors drive than then parishioners of the church, many, in not most, would come on shuttle buses from the various senior housing locations.
What is the evidence that a senior center is needed?
This sounds like classic generational theft: the government uses tax revenues -- which are forcibly extracted from younger, poorer, working people -- to provide benefits and services to older, wealthier, retired people. These same retirees are already recieving Social Security and Medicare. When is enough enough?
By the way, the elderly vote at high rates. I'm sure that has nothing to do with anything.
At least you townies don't vote every few years to spend billions on a fantasy bullet train from L.A. to San Francisco.
Bloggers Note: PKL is a personal friend and a resident of Calif.
I don't agree with his comment at all.
Senior centers are positive pieces of a community.
My parents enjoyed theirs while my Mom was alive and able, and my Dad would benefit from some visits nowadays.
The keep folks happier and healthier. So please let's not follow this particular thread any further.
Thanks for the comment, PKL.
the difference between yours and PKL's statments is that Newburyport doesn't retain its senior population, the vast majority of the population move out of town once their kids go off to college, and few actually retire and remain in Newburyport. So your analogy of you parents isn't apt, since the senior population in Newburyport has been shrinking steadily.
That's been stated as matter of fact, but I've seen no supporting statistics, only anecdotal accounts.
Post a Comment