Bloom is not the new high school we need; the School Building Committee (SBC) has ignored a better design under false pretenses.
The proposal for our new high school, Bloom, has many problems.
- It costs 43% more per square foot than the highly energy-efficient new Watertown High School. That’s because our SBC never asked our architects to minimize costs.
- It accommodates fewer students than Lexington High School (LHS) already has, yet 4,000 new MBTA dwellings may be built in the next decade, increasing Lexington’s population by 30%.
- It offers 28% less space per student than Watertown.
- In addition, Bloom breaks up the open space of our center fields and getting article 97 approved is no slam dunk.
Now the good news: another, better approach than Bloom exists: a 2-phase design on the LHS campus with simple multi-story “boxes,” phase 1 replacing the foreign languages building. Both phases can be funded by the MSBA.
In April 2024, the SBC abandoned this approach because of “major disruption to ongoing LHS building uses.” But we heard this month that disruptions can be mitigated: the new Hastings was built just 8 feet from active classrooms.
So proceeding with Bloom could be the worst decision ever made in Lexington. The Select Board should instead:
- First, not put a debt exclusion to the voters for Bloom.
- Second, have this 2-phase solution designed at minimal cost, to alleviate LHS overcrowding sooner than Bloom.
- Third, convince the MSBA to approve a higher-design enrollment because of the thousands of new MBTA dwellings to be built in Lexington because we zoned for MBTA 10 times more than the State required.
We cannot ignore a less expensive, more flexible, faster design than Bloom, which preserves our center fields.
Myths About Bloom vs. Watertown – and the Facts
1. Myth: Bloom costs far more per square foot than Watertown.
Fact: Watertown’s project was bid in 2022 and Bloom won’t start until 2026. With school construction inflation running 5–7% per year (32%+ since 2020 statewide), Watertown’s $1,095/sf cost would rise to about $1,350+/sf if bid at the same time as Bloom. Bloom’s projected $1,299/sf is actually lower on an apples-to-apples basis.
2. Myth: Watertown built more space per student than Bloom, so Bloom is undersized.
Fact: Watertown provides about 278 sq. ft. per student (200k sf ÷ 720 students). Bloom, excluding the separate Field House and admin offices, provides about 184 sq. ft. of educational space per student (441k sf ÷ 2,395 students). Smaller schools always appear to have more area per student because fixed spaces (gyms, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias) don’t shrink linearly. A 720-student school still needs one gym, one auditorium, one library—so per-student ratios look larger. For a large school like Lexington, Bloom’s ratio is right-sized and efficient.
3. Myth: Bloom’s higher total cost means it’s less efficient.
Fact: The right measure is cost per student, not just raw dollars. Watertown’s school cost $304k per student. Bloom comes in at $276k per student, lower despite being built later and larger. Scale actually makes Lexington’s project more cost-efficient.
4. Myth: Bloom is full of extravagant, non-essential features.
Fact: Both projects follow strict MSBA guidelines. Lexington added space where its program truly demanded it: a 1,000-seat auditorium (vs. 750 reimbursable) because of huge performing arts participation, an 18,000 sf gym (vs. 12,000) to serve 2,400 students, and 35,000 sf of special education space, exceeding state minimums by 11,000 to support LABBB and in-district programs. These are program-driven needs, not luxuries.
5. Myth: Watertown proves we could build smaller and cheaper if we tried.
Fact: Watertown’s budget also had unique site costs that don’t show up in the per-student math: a costly 126-car underground garage and swing space to house students off-site during construction. Lexington avoided those expenses by building on open fields and using surface parking. Each community’s project has scope-specific add-ons; neither is bloated.
6. Myth: Lexington could get a better deal if we wait.
Fact: Every year of delay adds millions. Construction costs have risen ~5–7% annually; the MSBA has documented recent bids exceeding $800/sf just for bare construction. Waiting only widens the gap. Lexington’s estimates already include escalation to mid-construction (late 2020s). If anything, the risk is that costs will overshoot if the project is postponed.
7. Myth: Bloom gives us less space per student than Watertown, so it’s a worse design.
Fact: The opposite is true when you focus on educational space per student: Bloom delivers all required classrooms, labs, arts, and athletic facilities for 2,395 students—something Watertown never had to design for. Many spaces scale in steps (you don’t need three libraries for a big school), so a larger high school naturally has a lower per-student ratio while still meeting every program requirement. Lexington ends up with more total educational capacity and lower cost per student, which is the true measure of efficiency.
⸻
👉 Bottom line: Opponents cherry-pick raw numbers, but the truth is clear: once you adjust for timing and scale, Bloom is as cost-efficient—or more so—than Watertown. It provides the right amount of educational space per student, at a lower per-student cost, with facilities sized for Lexington’s unique needs.
OK, the worst decision would be to not build the new high school. Let’s be clear about that. Projects do not get cheaper with time.
We have made a decision and it is Bloom. Bloom was the roughly the cheapest and fastest of the options – much cheaper then Weave, Quad and Figure 8 which were either renovations or phased in place. Phased in place was already considered, there is no need to rehash this poor design choice.
Lexington needs a new high school. The selection process was open and it really is not hard. We chose the cheapest and fastest option which also provided a more cohesive final product – the logical choice.
Best,
Eric
Jeremy:
Thank you for thinking through the reasons I present why Bloom is not the new High School we need. Unfortunately, you do not – as I always do – cite your sources or detail your calculations. As a result, everything you assert is wrong, as I explain below referring in sequence to all your points:
1. https://www.watertownmanews.com/2023/05/15/city-officials-look-at-ways-to-deal-with-soaring-cost-of-watertown-high-school-project/, dated May 15, 2023 states “The latest cost estimate came in at $219 million […]” so I understand $219 million to be as of 2023. To doublecheck, I emailed today the Watertown School and Municipal Finance Directors asking for clarification of what year the $219 million is in $s of and whether it is Watertown’s total cost. I will let everyone know the answer I receive.
Your inflation figures are wrong (correct ones from the SBC’s consultants are at the bottom of https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PcH2CCi7DjPlKq10Q0ZhS41RU4VY6D9O/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true, with sources, which is a SBC presentation) and your “2022” being for now just a guess, your point is invalid.
2. A building doesn’t “know” how many students will be in it, so to evaluate the relative costs of 2 High Schools, one looks at $s per square foot built in each.
If Julie must implement one of her strategies to accommodate more than 2,395 students in Bloom – squeeze more students in the same 477,681 square feet Bloom offers – then per student, Bloom will look, using your proposed metric of $/student, even cheaper than without the squeezing – which makes no sense: Bloom costs $660 million regardless of how many students are in it. So your point is invalid.
Bottom line Watertown builds a High School at $967/square foot while Bloom would cost $1,382/square foot, or 43% more.
3. As I explained in #2 squeeze more students in the (already 28% more cramped than Watertown) Bloom, i.e. have say 3,000 students instead of 2,395 in Bloom’s same 477,681 square feet and Bloom’s cost will “be” LOWER at ($660,000,000/3,000 =) $220k per student than your $276k. But we still spent the same $660 million, or 43% more than Watertown per square foot of concrete, electrical, plumbing, etc, for 3,000 or 2,395 students since the concrete etc don’t “care” how many students are inside Bloom.
4. I never even got into such details – to be “nice” to Bloom. The Watertown High School has exactly the same energy-efficient geothermal and heat pumps based HVAC design as Bloom, and looks architecturally as good as Bloom. Watertown not being an unsophisticated place, why assume they didn’t include all the necessary educational features like Bloom has since both designs have to pass the MSBA’s standards?
Bottom line, Bloom costs $1,382/sq ft vs. Watertown at $967/sq ft – not a small difference…
5. I have accounted for the Watertown underground garage and the fact that Bloom does not require swing space in rows 11 and 12 of https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PcH2CCi7DjPlKq10Q0ZhS41RU4VY6D9O/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true.
6. Your range of construction inflation rates is wrong. Per slide 8 of 29 of the SBC’s https://lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14955/20250731-PBC-Meeting-R1 presentation, the range is 1-4% annually per the SBC.
7. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dXRLDxydIe2S3NOsS7JcMIzSuvcjIBw2/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true, lists spaces that do not increase linearly with enrollment in Bloom as: (i) auditorium, 16,300 net sq ft, (ii) library, 13,890 net sq ft, (3) part of its administration & guidance (guidance does increase with enrollment) 16,870 net sq ft.
These 3 spaces add up to 47,060 net sq ft or less than 15% of Bloom’s total 322,250 net sq ft. Of the 322,250 net sq ft, core academic spaces are 37%, followed by Special education 11%, Health & physical education 10%, CO 9%, art & music 5%, dining 6%, and media center 4%.
So your point is valid for less than 15% of Bloom’s space, and invalid for over 85%, making 28% a good estimate of how much more cramped Bloom is than Watertown – until you provide more detailed calculations, as I do.
As a summary, no, I don’t “cherry-pick”, I think strategically and analyze data as best I can, including about issues Bloom supporters ignore, mainly that Bloom cannot deal with a 30% increase in Lexington’s population from 4,000 new MBTA dwellings in the next decade, and that the SBC dismissed in April 2024 an on-campus, 2-phase design that would (a) be cheaper than Bloom (because built as “boxes”, like in Watertown), (b) receive MSBA support, possibly at a higher rate than Bloom’s 16.7% and (c) alleviate LHS overcrowding, once phase 1 is completed sooner than Bloom can.
We now know that the “reason” the SBC dismissed that design in 2024 was invalid: disruptions CAN be mitigated, as you can hear in 2:11 minutes at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tEYeL9S_PIgTgL4Wf2OLkR1BKOnkWGLW/view?usp=sharing: the new Hastings was built just 8 feet from classrooms with kids in them.