The decision to build a new Lexington High School rather than renovate the existing one represents a thoughtful, community-centered choice — one that prioritizes educational continuity, student well-being and long-term value for the town. Recent correspondence among community members and town officials highlights the key reasons the School Building Committee (SBC) moved toward new construction rather than attempting an in-place renovation.
Minimizing Disruption to Learning
Renovating a school while it remains occupied poses significant challenges. As Lexington’s Director of Public Facilities, Mike Cronin, explained, an extensive renovation would expose students and staff to ongoing noise, vibration, odors, and intermittent power or HVAC interruptions for years. These disruptions can affect concentration, comfort and safety — ultimately undermining the quality of teaching and learning.
By contrast, building a new facility on an adjacent property allows day-to-day instruction to continue uninterrupted. Construction activity will take place farther from classrooms, and the town is implementing multiple measures to limit impact — such as taller fences with sound-dampening fabric and scheduling the loudest work during the summer months. Once the new building is enclosed, the effect of construction on the current campus will decrease substantially. This approach ensures that students can learn in a stable, predictable environment throughout the project.
Maintaining the Current School Through Transition
A common concern among parents and students is whether the existing high school will receive less care once the new project is underway. Cronin’s assurance addresses this directly: the current facility will continue to receive the same level of maintenance, cleaning and attention it does today until the summer of 2029, when the move to the new building is expected.
This commitment means that students currently enrolled at Lexington High School — and those who will attend in the next few years — will continue to have a safe, well-maintained environment. The town’s pledge reflects both fiscal responsibility and respect for the students who will complete their education in the existing building.
A Modern Facility for Future Generations
While renovation might appear to be the more economical path at first glance, it often limits how much a building can truly evolve. Constructing a new high school gives Lexington the opportunity to design a facility that reflects 21st-century learning needs — from collaborative, technology-rich classrooms to energy-efficient systems and flexible spaces that can adapt to future teaching methods.
A purpose-built school also eliminates the inefficiencies that result from decades of piecemeal renovations. Instead of layering modern infrastructure onto an outdated framework, the town can invest in a cohesive design that supports both innovation and sustainability for decades to come.
Putting Students First
Perhaps most importantly, the choice to build new demonstrates a student-first philosophy. The SBC’s decision acknowledges that the educational experience of current students matters just as much as that of future ones. By constructing on adjacent land, the town avoids forcing today’s students to learn amidst construction, while ensuring that tomorrow’s students inherit a modern, thoughtfully-designed campus.
Conclusion
Lexington’s decision to build a new high school is rooted in foresight and compassion. It balances the needs of current students with the vision of a stronger, more adaptable future. Rather than settling for short-term fixes, the community has chosen a long-term investment in learning, safety and sustainability.
In short, this project is more than a construction plan — it is a commitment to excellence in education and to the well-being of every student who calls Lexington home.

Catherine:
Lexington’s Director of Public Facilities, Mike Cronin and the SBC’s consultant Turner Construction said the exact OPPOSITE of what you wrote about disruptions during construction during the last SBC information meeting: listen to these 2:11 minutes on https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tEYeL9S_PIgTgL4Wf2OLkR1BKOnkWGLW/view?usp=sharing to hear it from the experts themselves.
Just like happened when the new Hastings was built just 8 feet from occupied classrooms, and since LHS’s buildings are further apart than 8 feet from each other, on-campus construction of NEW buildings (not renovations) can happen on-campus in a phased manner, and with simpler, cheaper boxes than Bloom.
Bloom costs per square foot 30% more than the new Watertown High school (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PcH2CCi7DjPlKq10Q0ZhS41RU4VY6D9O/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true),
30% more than Sharon’s (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S4muEecriSwk8tiwzPEfahpxvfCxWg0a/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true), 9% more than Wakefield’s (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H2L2fA4KbKJWgpLajBvFxT7Q9tqMw7vi/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true) and per the SBC’s own calculations at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u2umuhbcHG43JgRG0Y19BM1lPVDyW2en/view?usp=sharing, 25% more than Belmont’s and 14% more than Arlington’s.
In short, Bloom is too expensive.
And sized for today’s LHS enrollment capacity, Bloom is too small to absorb the large influx of new students from the 5,000+ new MBTA dwellings likely to be built in Town in the next 10 years, while a better on-campus, phased, box-based design was ignored under the false pretense of disruptions during construction that you incorrectly repeat when Mike Cronin and Turner Construction said the opposite: disruptions can be mitigated.
I will vote NO on Monday December 8 so that the SBC finally designs and cost estimates this better, cheaper and faster to build than Bloom, on-campus design.
Your spreadsheet numbers are incorrect. To make an apples-to-apples comparison, you increase the Watertown high school costs by 10% to account for the fact that the project was started years ago. Everyone knows that in the past 5 years construction costs have gone up WAY higher than that.
Also, you remove $40M in costs from Watertown, but don’t remove anything from Bloom. That makes no sense. Bloom is building a parking lots too and has other facilities that Watertown doesn’t have. Why remove things that Watertown has and Bloom doesn’t, while leaving in costs that Bloom has but Watertown doesn’t?
To me, this seems like a spreadsheet made to get to a predetermined answer, rather than an unbiased cost comparison.
Everyone should feel free to share their opinions, but it’s WRONG to share fabricated data to try to sway others.
Patrick:
I appreciate the time you have taken to analyze the Bloom project and believe you are trying to help Lexington. So I thought I should look at your spreadsheet that compares Watertown’s costs from 2022 to Bloom’s. I used your total for Watertown ($179,790,680) and then asked Perplexity (my ChatGPT-like AI reference) for the rate of inflation for high school construction costs from 2022 to 2025. Their answer was: “…compounded inflation of about 25%–30% in high school construction costs for the region (i.e. Greater Boston) from 2022 to 2025.”
Using 27.5 % (mid point of 25%-30%) to adjust your Watertown total amount for present day comparison to Bloom, this indicates that Bloom’s costs could be considered 13% higher than Watertown’s; NOT the 30% you determined.
Of course many aspects of both projects should be considered in a comparison, but your main objection to Bloom is that is too expensive based on cost per square foot. You offer a comparison to Watertown as evidence of this. I disagree with your conclusion
I will be voting YES on December 8th.