The high school building project has reached a critical point. The building committee leadership is determined to vote for a single design on November 12, yet a delay of two to four months is unlikely to disrupt the schedule for starting construction in the summer of 2026.
There is discontent in town with the current six plans for a number of reasons. Add them up and the prospect for a successful debt exclusion vote seems dim. Each can be addressed over the coming months.
The committee promised the town that it would discuss and advocate for building off the playing fields. This is a critical issue and the committee needs to honor that promise.
On September 30, the entire committee expressed its complete disdain for the three plans that avoid the fields. Moving to a vote on the remaining three plans without discussion of why they are unsatisfactory and without credible alternatives would seem to be a fatal mistake.
The projected $630 million cost for any of the three remaining plans makes it imperative that the committee discuss the so-called Phase 1 plan. In this plan a four-story wing on the site of the World Languages Building could be built as a first step towards either an entirely new or a partly renovated school. It would cost $250 million or less. A second phase would begin when increased enrollment due to the MBTA Communities Act can be reliably predicted.
Here is what this addition might look like.
This modest project would relieve overcrowding in two to three years, far faster than any current proposal. Construction would have virtually no effect on student education. The World Languages Department would move to modular classrooms and then move into the new space, and occupy little more than one floor of it. Other school functions could move entirely or expand into the remaining space. The adjacent cafeteria could expand into this wing, for example.
Signatures were gathered last week to place an item on the fall warrant. It asks Town Meeting to resolve that the School Building Committee delay its vote for two to four months to consider the Phase 1 plan.
On September 30, the student advisors to the building committee pointed out that the rooftop open space that appears in all but one of the plans for a new school would not be used. Eliminating this feature opens up the possibility of a brand new school on campus that would maintain the current quad and the look and feel of the current school, much as depicted above.
That, however, would be a phased project that would add a couple more years to complete. The public needs a full discussion of the pros and cons of phasing.
So here are two homework assignments for you.
1. Go to the building project webpage where the recordings of every building committee meeting are found.Open the April 29, 2024, meeting recording and start listening at minute 33:08. The speaker, Lorraine Finnegan, directs the K-12 building division of the designer, SMMA, that has built over a hundred schools.
2. Read my full exposition of the above summary here.
I hope readers understand that the “Phase 1 plan” Jim is describing will cost the Town more than any of the New on Fields options under consideration. “Phase 1” of that design may be less than the total project cost of the New on Fields options, but after adding costs of later phases needed to complete their design, we’re left with an option millions and millions more than what the SBC is considering.
Jim says of his plan, “Like plan D2 [SBC’s New build phased in place option], this school would be built in phases. A phased building project can be as simple as building in sections with departments and other functions moving into each new space when it is finished. More commonly it involves some departments moving into modular classrooms temporarily and then into new space. It can be uneventful and even pleasurable.”
Besides the strange assertion that living through construction on site may be “pleasurable” for anyone, I want to highlight that the latest cost estimates for the D2 option indicate it will cost $72 million more than any of the New on Fields options. It is way more expensive because of modulars and the extended construction time frame due to phasing. (All the phased in place options that the professional estimators have costed out this month are >$50 million more than New on Fields). Adding still more delays that Jim is proposing on top of this phasing will just continue to increase the costs to the Town as costs rise over time.
The planning and design process have been open to the public from the beginning, and there has been robust resident engagement as the SBC has developed and assessed alternatives. After the work, it has become clear that the most cost-effective, educationally appropriate, fastest and least disruptive solution for the town is one of the New on Fields options.
Please attend the upcoming LHS Building Project Community Forum on October 30, 6:30-8:30pm at Cary Memorial Building and visit the project website to learn more and stay engaged with the process.
https://www.lhsproject.lexingtonma.org/
The latest cost estimates for the D2 option indicate it will cost $72 million more than any of the New on Fields options. Use of modulars and the extended construction time frame due to phasing dramatically increase the total cost, despite what looks like initial savings for the town. All the phased in place options that the professional estimators have costed out this month are >$50 million more than New on Fields. Adding still more delays on top of this phasing will continue to increase the costs to the Town as costs rise over time.
We have delayed and delayed and are now faced with the results of those actions: a school that will cost $300M just to bring up to code, with no expansion, and is already much too small for current enrollment. It’s time to act, take the state grant money available to us for this limited time, and build a new LHS.
It defies common sense that a project of this magnitude would be rushed. This is a LOT of $$$ and once the decision is made and concrete gets poured you can’t roll it back.
I for one would advocate for a slower pace that increases odds of either a higher quality or less costly result.