Sometimes, outdated school buildings aren’t just uncomfortable—they become counterproductive for students and the community.
I have two Lexington High School (LHS) graduates, one current student, and a middle schooler, and I think LHS is a hindrance to an otherwise outstanding education. My son rushes to be on time for classes as he navigates crowded and inefficient routes that are necessary because random doors are locked to discourage intruders—which is another reason (besides our weather) that the open campus design is impractical. Without enough lockers, my kids lug their belongings around all day. Consequently, my son’s jacket was lost or stolen during P.E. He says he doesn’t mind carrying his coat in the winter because some rooms are so cold that he needs to wear it during class. Another child chose to eat lunch while sitting on the floor in the hallway instead of the overcrowded cafeteria.
Then, there are the missed opportunities. LHS now seems to host fewer non-school events than it used to. My daughter’s recitals have been held in other towns. When I saw the Bloom design, with the adjacent spaces to the Dining Commons, I thought, “LHS could finally host a regional Destination Imagination tournament!” The central spaces are intended to promote a sense of connection that my kids agree is difficult with a large student body—they rarely saw the same students across different classes.
The new school is going to be expensive, but so would be maintaining the current building. Tons of information is available online through the LHS Building Project website, as well as Yes4Lex, that makes it clear that the building committee has thought carefully about this endeavor. I learned that the cost of this project is comparable to that of other high schools, that the environmentally-friendly design will comply with town guidelines and ultimately reduce energy costs, and that necessary HVAC upgrades to the current building could be up to $300 million—while the projected cost of an entirely new building, after grants and other rebates, would be about $543 million. I thought, “Didn’t we just upgrade the HVAC to make the school safe enough to open during COVID?” I don’t want to keep funneling money into an inadequate building when we have this opportunity to construct a larger, safer and greener building that is better suited to modern teaching and learning styles, and could inspire new ideas and opportunities for our students and the town.
Robyn:
Instead of circulating misinformation — e.g. “necessary HVAC upgrades to the current building could be up to $300 million” which I show to be plain wrong in #1 of https://lexobserver.org/2025/08/18/letters-to-the-editor-some-facts-about-bloom — the SBC should have prepared a Plan B to Bloom since Bloom cannot be built due to deed restrictions, if https://drive.google.com/file/d/10beqNx4jZpoLeHauSFSwnYLR2Nmjd1Bp/view is correct.
Yes, of course we need a new High school, but we need one that meets the needs of Lexington over the next 70 years — the lifespan of a modern new building — but Bloom can accommodate fewer students than we already have while Lexington’s population will increase, possibly by 30%, due to our new MBTA dwellings.
This comment contains misinformation.
Bloom can accommodate up to 3,500 students. Right now, LHS has 2,318 students – in a school that was designed for a maximum capacity of *1,800* students. LHS is overcrowded, and has been overcrowded for almost two decades.
Mehr’s thoughts on renovation costs are wrong, and it has yet to be proven that a 110-year-old deed restriction has any legal force, given that Massachusetts legislature has decided that deed restrictions that are supposed to be in effect “in perpetuity” expire after 30 years.
For facts about the LHS building plans, visit https://www.yes4lex.org/top-10-myths
Meg:
3,500 is news to me, wow! The SBC says that Bloom’s 2,395 capacity can be expanded to 3,200 by moving the CO out of Bloom and lengthening a wing of Bloom on its 4 stories — but without saying at what cost us, taxpayers, over the base $660 million (and without MSBA support). “Muckenhoupt” (I am Patrick, not “Mehr”) doesn’t tell us how she gets from 3,200 to 3,500, nor at what cost beyond $660 million.
If “[Patrick’s] thoughts on renovation costs” refers to the SBC’s assertion that it would cost $300 million (upped to $311 million in the SBC’s recent video) over 10 years to maintain the current LHS campus, that figure of $30 million per year is grossly wrong since we will spend this coming year only $8.2 million to maintain and repair ALL our buildings (municipal, schools including LHS, Cary library) per page IV-21 of the FY26 recommended budget https://lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14008/FY2026-BROWN-BOOK—revised-31025?bidId=, 3rd line from the bottom, Expenses from all funds.
I am totally incompetent about deeds — the SB should look into the issue.
Patrick –
1) You have been well aware that the proposed building can grow to ~3500 students. To quote from your email of 2/9/2025 to me and others:
“If Bloom’s Central office space is converted into educational space, Bloom will offer 461,516 sq ft of educational space, or 44.9% more than our current LHS (461,516/318,470 = 1.449), so Bloom will be as cramped as our current LHS is now if enrollments reach 1.449 x 2,405 = 3,485 students.”
These are your calculations – and they don’t include the expansion of the building that is anticipated in the Bloom design.
As to the quality of life in the new building, you neglect that the new LHS is not just additional square feet but also increases height and volume creating airier and more natural light in the spaces. This makes an experience for students that is less cramped even if it is as dense and heavily used as our current facility.
2) You claim that renovation costs are “wrong” because we haven’t been spending on items that are overdue for replacement – so they mustn’t be necessary. This logic is flawed. We have delayed spending on these existing renovation needs because the investment would be wasted when we replace the building. These major systems are at end of life and replacement cannot be long delayed. The renovation costs will need to be incurred if we don’t replace the building.
You have made many assertions in different forums. I haven’t been able to respond to each of these – but that omission should not be interpreted as tacit agreement.
Joe:
Re 1) you gloss over my essential “Bloom will be as cramped as our current LHS is now” with 3,485 students. Is it smart governance to spend $660 + $X million to end up with the same overcrowding we have now (but granted, with glitzier floors, staircases, geothermal wells, etc)? I don’t think so.
And what is $X million — the cost to increase capacity from 2,395 students to the super-sardine design that would accommodate 3,485 students, or just to 3,200 as the SBC, not Patrick, says? The SBC has not told us, surprise, surprise… It’s much more fun to choose the color of Bloom’s walls than to do some serious long-range planning.
Re 2) for many years before FY26 we have been spending less than $8.2 million per year (the budgeted amount for FY26 per page IV-21 of the FY26 recommended budget https://lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14008/FY2026-BROWN-BOOK—revised-31025?bidId=, 3rd line from the bottom, Expenses from all funds) to maintain and repair ALL municipal and school buildings. So the “$311 million over 10 years” — or $31.1 million per year ONLY for LHS — in the SBC’s video is an obvious lie. I will receive by Sept 24 all documents on the basis of which $311 million was arrived at in response to my PRR: I predict the Town will tell me (as it already did when the $311 million was $300 million) “there are no such documents”, confirming that the $311 million was (not very smartly…) simply pulled out of the air (as the $300 million itself was).
I believe we need a new High School. But Bloom is evidently too small, and wastes extremely valuable land that we may need for future schools at all grades, the current LHS campus. My point about $31.1 million being obviously not what it costs annually to keep the current LHS going for another 2-3-4 years is that the SB can easily defer Bloom while convincing, with our legislators’ support, the narrow-minded MSBA bureaucrats and the Governor that 2,395 is a bad joke given what Lexington has done at the Governor’s urging for MBTA developments — accepting a 30% population increase in Lexington over the next 7-10 years. And remember, the only useful finding by Fougère is that 1-bedroom apartments generate more school kids in Lexington than anywhere else.
Most importantly, you and the SB are still ignoring a far bigger problem: why are rental apartment complexes (as are 88% of the 1,000 already known new MBTA dwellings, so very likely most of all future 4,000 or so I predict we will have in Lexington will also be rental apartments) paying 36% only of what SFDs pay in taxes (per https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11zfp3k01F-AJOIYZRJdvFC28tMA5quj3/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true)?
Will the SB wake up to this HUGE problem before Lexington is “bankrupt” — with or without Bloom?