School Superintendent Julie Hackett explains that Bloom can accommodate up to 3,238 students, 843 more than its design enrollment of 2,395 – which is fewer students than we have today – by (1) squeezing in more students per classroom, (2) converting 20,000 square feet of central office space into classrooms, and (3) building an addition to Bloom.
But Julie gives no cost estimate for (2) and (3) which, unlike (1), will cost money. My guess is that (2) and (3) will cost many tens of millions of dollars, possibly over $100 million, in addition to the $658 million cost of Bloom.
Re (1), should an excellent school system squeeze students even more than Bloom’s “sardine design” already does?
An analysis of MSBA’s data about recently built high schools shows that Bloom provides 184 square feet per student, or 25% less space per student, than at the new Arlington, Somerville and Waltham High Schools – each offer about 230 square feet per student. (1) will further reduce Bloom’s 184 figure. Is that educationally sound? I don’t know. A “sardine design” high school that’s supposed to serve us for 70 years while enrollments are very likely to grow makes no sense.
A 15-dwellings “Special Residential Development” (SRD), that will look like this, was just applied for at 287-295 Waltham St. Like for MBTA developments, our town leaders have done no analysis of how many new SRDs Lexington may see in five, 10 or 15 years, and what their impact on our budgets and school space will be. The schools, therefore, cannot estimate how many high school students to plan for, possibly more than 3,238, as Bloom can accommodate at an extra cost beyond $658 million.
If MBTA and SRD developments raise our high school enrollments above 3,238 – say, to 3,500 or 4,000 – a few years after Bloom opens, the schools have no plan for where to place the students that won’t fit in Bloom, while we again must wait for eight years to get to the front of the MSBA’s queue of applicants.
Bloom’s design is too rigid, risky, cramped, and expensive, and must be replaced with a more flexible and quicker one. Bloom cannot accommodate 3,500 to 4,000 students, as we may have, depending on how many new dwellings are built in Lexington and who will live in them.
Patrick Mehr, candidate for Select Board
In addition to the Bloom’s issues Patrick has identified and the astronomical cost (Bloom was designed WITHOUT any budget guidelines), there’s a serious risk the land for Bloom may not be available. The fields are protected by Art. 97 of the State Constitution, which requires meeting several stringent conditions to remove this protection, including proving there are no alternatives. Although removals are routine, legal challenges could delay construction by at least a year (possibly by 3-4 yrs), costing Lexington $20M per year in inflation. If Art. 97 protection remains, Lexington will have wasted $25M in design fees, $100M in MSBA funding and could face a 3–4 year delay. Bloom’s future depends on lifting these protections in time for a January 2026 start, which is a gamble. A better solution exists: redesign LHS as a staged project, designed to a budget, follow the current MSBA rules for a 2,395 school to retain their $100M funding where the LHS is completed around 2032-2033. Stage 1 (completed by 2028-29) will relieve overcrowding in core academic subjects. We can upsize Stage 2 as its construction commences after Stage 1 is completed, so we can build to correct size if needed based on more accurate enrollment projections. But the longer the Select Board and School Committee wait, the more taxpayer dollars will be wasted. Please urge them to refocus on a staged project. Thanks for staying informed.
This is the same misleading analysis that Mr. Mehr published on Facebook earlier in the week – the comparison of total square feet per student is misleading as not every space in a High School scales with student enrollment. As I noted in my comments on his Facebook post, “In terms of purely instructional area, Lexington will provide roughly 170 ft²/student – very much in line with other well-designed schools. This suggests Lexington’s plan is efficient and not overbuilt relative to peers.” Bloom is designed per MSBA guidelines for student instructional space and well within current norms for other spaces.
Gross square feet per student is 234 sq ft in Arlington but instructional square feet is ~170 sq ft, Somerville is 249 gross sq ft per student but ~170 sq ft instructional space, and Waltham is 227 sq ft gross space per student but 160-170 sq ft instructional space. These are all consistent with Bloom’s instructional square feet per student and the difference between High Schools designed for 1800 students (Waltham) vs 2400 (Lexington).
Jeremy (I am Patrick, not Mr Mehr):
Can you please provide the data (with source) showing how to compute the three 170 figures in your “Gross square feet per student is 234 sq ft in Arlington but instructional square feet is ~170 sq ft, Somerville is 249 gross sq ft per student but ~170 sq ft instructional space, and Waltham is 227 sq ft gross space per student but 160-170 sq ft instructional space”? Thank you.
Responding to Ms. Guttag’s note, the LHS4All movement is starting to feel like a coup, pulling out all stops to try to prevent the voters of Lexington from being able to go to the polls and decide whether they want to support a Debt Exclusion to fund Bloom. Threats and scare tactics of Article 97 lawsuits and delays? Trying to elect a Select Board member to try to inject uncertainty around Select Board approval for an Article 97 swap? At some point it’s either a coup or an old-style stick-em-up. The SBC worked transparently for the last few years evaluating tons of proposals, including phased-in-place. Bloom was selected because it was the best option – lowest overall cost for the design enrollment, least impact on the current LHS community, maximized involvement of MBSA reimbursement, and fastest to construct. Phased-in-place is nothing short of disastrous to LHS operations, student morale and mental health, and outcomes. LHS4All has transformed from raising legitimate questions and pushing the SBC towards a better output to now throwing out every objection possible, including boogeyman threats of lawsuits, in an effort to try to turn public perception. Lexington has a very intelligent and informed community. Let’s give them the right to vote on a debt exclusion and not try to hijack the process through a coup on town government.
Jeremy:
“phased-in-place” is not a staged design, for the simple reason that if we need 2-3 years after Phase 1 opens a Phase 2 that is a full 2nd High School, that 2nd High School would evidently not fit “in-place” on the current LHS property. To the best of my research skills, I have concluded that contrary to what the SBC wants you and the public to believe, it has NOT had the architects design and cost-estimate professionally (in the format of the 141-page https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t_n7Qhc1ABALcvCl_KnusiIwiwHvZC9S/view?usp=sharing for 6 designs including Bloom and the phased-in-place Weave) any Phase 1 of any staged project. Instead a figure ($243 million) was “doodled” as you can read at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K2BxR0hP9-JO9Fqo5O6KuWbddNFZ_enm/view?usp=sharing, or pulled out of the air, by two individuals over two short emails 3 weeks before the SBC voted to proceed with Bloom. So your “The SBC worked transparently for the last few years evaluating tons of proposals” is untrue, sadly: the SBC may have evaluated “tons of proposals” but the “tons” included no staged design.
Oh, and re a “coup”, I was not in Washington on that January 6, I am not a NRA member, and I look forward to the usual free Town election — where sadly, 85% of registered voters stay home, but happily everything goes on peacefully.
If highlighting potential project issues and informing voters is a “coup,” then I plead guilty. The Bloom project faces two major hurdles: removing Art. 97 protections (land swap) and passing a massive debt exclusion to fund two-thirds of $1 billion, and potentially needing additional well over $100M if expansion is required. Many land swaps have been delayed or blocked by litigation. 22 swaps succeeded last year mostly because residents were unaware of Art. 97 removals until it was too late. Some, including me, are lobbying against the Bloom swap at local (YES, I am lobbying TM members here) and state levels, and legal action is being explored by others to halt it. Securing the land for Bloom is not guaranteed, and voters need to be aware of this.
The strongest argument for Bloom is the it delivers a renewed LHS in the fastest time, but Art. 97 protections may DELAY that by at least a year, possibly 3-4 yrs, or may stop the land swap altogether. The SBC and architects are GAMBLING that no one will oppose the land swap, but I oppose it and will fight to protect the wetland basin.
We should have modernized our high school 10-15 years ago, but now we have the chance to do it in two stages. Stage 1 will address overcrowded classrooms and reinstate electives within two years of the debt exclusion vote—up to year faster than Bloom. Stage 2, designed for 2,395 students, can be up-sized before construction begins in 2028/29. By 2032, we should have completed a beautiful renewed high school at 85% capacity, with more electives, better MSBA reimbursement, and within budget.
This approach is more cost-effective, provides a properly sized school, and avoids dividing the community over Bloom’s flawed process and its high cost.
Citizens have legitimate concerns about the project. Hyperbole like “coup” and “old fashioned stick-em-up” have no place in a serious discussion. On social media, a project proponent posted an attack video ridiculing an opponent. These kind of tactics and rhetoric degrade the political process we’re having.
Lexington is historic. Let’s have a political debate worthy of our heritage.
Alan, we can respectfully disagree on this. As Olga admitted, this is not hyperbole. Some of LHS4All has morphed from trying to gain support for phased-in-place to now truly trying to block Bloom and make it either financially prohibitive (multi year construction delays) or legally impossible. Some was covert. Now at least some of the intentions are out in the open. LHS4All supporters are running for town positions up and down the ballot now in the upcoming town election. Part of that effort is to move the choice on Bloom out of the hands of residents (Fall debt override vote) because they don’t seem to trust residents and instead block it and gum it up at the School Committee or Select Board level to throw utter chaos into the project. That’s the definition of a coup – a seizure of power. In this case, removing any semblance of democratic process and instead dangling threats of prolonged lawsuits if and only if the attempt to vote in the LHS4All candidates doesn’t work. This is nothing short of sinister and in my opinion completely disingenuous. Even a phased-in-place project would most likely need to utilize these boggy wetlands that would have been the LHS construction site decades ago if construction technology was there. We need staff parking and construction staging. It’ll be a multi-year displacement in any event. But I guess it’s fine in one instance because 🤷🏼♂️.
Pleases do not support any LHS4ALL candidates, including Mr. Mehr. They refuse to accept the facts but rather re-hash questions that have already been answered.
If they are unhappy with MBTA zoning, take that up. Regardless of MBTA zoning, we need a new HS and the Bloom design gives Lexington everything that is needed, including room for up to an additional 1000 students, in the shortest time frame and at the lowest cost. In spite of what LHS4ALL claims, a ‘phased’ approach will cost more than Bloom.
Looking beyond bricks and mortar—perhaps educational strategies and innovations could also be addressed for a new LHS? Students gathered in classrooms with a lead teacher dates back several hundred years when newspapers and pony express were vital for communications. How about creating/utilizing other options ie offering cooperative—“co-op” ventures with local businesses/merchants where students (juniors,seniors) work/volunteer while applying required course content ie communication styles, hierarchy, relationships within and outside of the organization, leadership skills, financial structure, scenario description etc. Backtracking from traditional classrooms is not just a vocational approach but via a well designed program involving faculty, students and community can enhance individual learning making the bricks and mortar approach to learning at least more flexible.
Can you please provide the data and source for your possible cost assessment of tens of millions of dollars or more in this line: “But Julie gives no cost estimate for (2) and (3) which, unlike (1), will cost money. My guess is that (2) and (3) will cost many tens of millions of dollars, possibly over $100 million, in addition to the $658 million cost of Bloom.”? While I am sure that 1 could cost more money, I can’t imagine 2 being all that expensive seeing that it probably just requires adding desks, classroom materials and maybe moving some walls. Additionally, in terms of cost, every year that Lexington delays building a new high school, the higher the cost it is creating for itself. It is not a matter of if but when this will be needed and the longer the current school falls into disrepair and increased health risks, the more legal risk the town takes on. If the new high school were not approved at this point and just revamped, what is your timeline for when the town should plan to replace the structure? Regrettably reliable, safe, and cost-effective renovations cannot be done in perpetuity.
As I wrote, I guessed — repeat guessed: see 2nd word of 2nd sentence of my 2nd paragraph — because Julie’s statements came without any $ cost figure associated with her (2) converting 20,000 square feet of central office space into classrooms, and (3) building an addition to Bloom, both of which will obviously cost money beyond the $658 million cost of Bloom for 2,395 students capacity, unlike Julie’s (1) squeezing in more students per classroom, which only requires more desks. I am no construction expert, but “moving some walls” in (2) must not be cheap in a modern, finished building, so unlike you “I can’t imagine 2 being all that [in]expensive”. The question is: why has the SBC not priced (2) and (3), as it never priced a more flexible staged design? I don’t know. What I do know is that with many hundreds of MBTA dwellings coming, spending 2/3 of $1 billion on a new High School supposed to last for 70 years, yet designed for FEWER students than we have today, is senseless.