By Lynne Smith
(Editor’s note: See the response to Smith’s piece by CCNC Chair Sarah Chester below.)
At the April 4 Community Center Building Committee (CCBC) community forum, I realized that ICON Architecture has no plans to review alternate spaces for community center activities. ICON’s charge is to develop three options for a building on the Hartwell campus: 50%, 75%, and something approaching 100% of the original $25 million cost. As a result, I propose a study group be created to consider “existing available town space” as intended by the vote taken at the 2022 Special Town Meeting.*
The community forum allowed many of the 100 attendees to air their comments. A few were in favor of a new building on the Hartwell campus. Some wanted an open space for informal gathering. Others liked the proximity for after-school programs for students. Several cited the inadequacy of Bemis Hall and pointed to the 2019 town meeting charrette that favored the Hartwell campus as a location.
But many were opposed to a large new building on the Hartwell campus hosting all programs. Here is my summary of this opposition.
Cost to taxpayers — Jonathan Sheffi, who identified himself as a new resident with a young family, described his inability to persuade friends his age to move to Lincoln because of our housing costs and high taxes. Kate Wolf, a long-time resident of Lincoln, pointed out that her taxes have increased significantly in the last four years and she expressed concerns about adding on more capital projects while Lincoln is still paying off bonds for the new school. Both Wolf and Sheffi recognize that Lincoln has no commercial base to mitigate tax bills but think the town should work to minimize taxes whenever possible. Dennis Picker said that he thought the amendment to the November 2022 motion had actually omitted a 100% option for the project, thus ensuring a lower-cost building. His surprise that ICON will study three options led to a moving conversation with Jonathan Dwyer — a very “Lincoln” moment that grounded all of us as a community.
Need for a viable town center — Three architects (Ken Hurd, Brooks Mostue, and David O’Neil) all argued for siting a community center in the “center of the community” as recommended in the long-term plan developed by the Planning Board several years ago. Others including Joe Robbat also made clear their wish for more development at Lincoln Station where there are many vacant spaces along with important amenities.
Use of existing spaces — Many attendees voiced a desire to explore use of existing spaces before committing to a large new building. In fact, the CCBC passed out a spreadsheet labeled Decentralized Programming Matrix which identified the many programs currently being held in spaces other than Bemis Hall or the Hartwell pods. The spreadsheet made clear which activities could continue in those spaces. I was glad to see this listing of programs for the Council on Aging & Human Services (COA&HS) and Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) held in various places around town: the school gyms, the library, the Pierce House and Pierce Park, local churches, our outdoor trails, and off-site activities. As I said at the meeting and in earlier Lincoln Squirrel articles, I support some investment in these spaces to make them suitable for use in the 21st century.
A study group of community spaces — As a result of the community discussion, I hope that Lincoln and/or the CCBC will form a study group to create a current inventory of existing spaces, match them with identified activities, and recommend modifications that would make these spaces even more useful to town activities. This analysis would ensure that alternative spaces get a full and fair review, as was set forth in the Special Town Meeting vote of 2022. Given the number of residents who attended the April 4 CCBC community forum, I am confident that there are eager volunteers to lead and participate in this important effort.
* Here is the motion that was ultimately approved at the Special Town Meeting on November 30, 2022, with amendments to the original motion indicated in boldface:
“That the town vote to transfer the sum of $325,000 from the town’s Stabilization Fund for the purpose of hiring relevant consultant support services, to potentially include project management, design, engineering and other technical reviews to assist the Community Center Building Committee in developing a range of community center design choices and budgets including options not to exceed 75% and 50% of the current project estimated cost of $25 million for the Hartwell complex, supplemented or not with existing available town space, with the intention of presenting said choices at a fall 2023 Special Town Meeting for a vote on a preferred option; and provided further, that it is anticipated that the preferred option selected by the town will be presented for a funding vote in March of 2025.”
Response from SBCC Chair Sarah Chester:
Thank you, Lynne, for your continued thoughts and suggestions for the community center process.
I am puzzled, however, that you think that CCBC and ICON are not concerned with the locations that the COA&HS and the PRD use around town. As shown in the amended motion from the November 2022 Special Town Meeting, and as architect Ned Collier and I reiterated in the “open mic” meeting on April 4, CCBC is obligated to explore the use of other facilities around town to try to meet our program needs. We gave ICON a tour of the outlying spaces in town the day after ICON signed their contract. We shared with them immediately a document highlighting COA&HS and PRD program locations around town, and this program matrix was mentioned in public meetings multiple times. As COA&HS director Abigail Butt pointed out on April 4, ICON has conducted a deep evaluation of Bemis Hall. Facilities Director Brandon Kelly is working with them to understand the Hartwell campus spaces, and ICON will proceed to the Pierce House shortly. Additional locations will be reviewed after that. ICON needs to understand all of these opportunities if they are to develop three viable program options. A separate study committee would duplicate their work and slow the process.
As Ned described, ICON is working along two tracks: conducting an in-depth analysis of the Hartwell site (traffic, wetlands, etc.) and collecting as much program data as possible. This includes extensive interviews with all stakeholders and evaluating other locations around town. CCBC is conducting a third concurrent track: seeking input from town organizations about the project and from residents via a survey about their individual values. This will also inform ICON’s work.
ICON updates the committee and the community on this work at each of our public meetings. They also will be presenting their work and seeking further feedback at our next public forum on April 25. This process is all to help them formulate the variety of price options specified in our charge.
This response is more detailed than your letter needed, but I want to assure you and other readers that the CCBC is closely following its instructions from the Special Town Meeting and, with the skilled assistance of ICON Architecture, is proceeding along the complex and tight schedule.
Sarah Chester
Chair, Community Center Building Committee
P.S. The next CCBC meeting will be held Wednesday, April 12 at 7 p.m. in the Donaldson Room, Town Hall, hybrid format (see agenda here).
“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.
Sarah, thank you for reassuring me that ICON will study existing spaces in town. Continuing use of these spaces should lead to a smaller footprint for any new building. I was not confident that would happen until your letter.