The five community center site options and costs from ICON Architects (click to enlarge).
At a June 13 public forum, architects presented five basic site designs for a community center that satisfy the three cost parameters approved by residents in November 2022 — but some residents were disappointed in some features of the lower-cost options.
All five concepts call for 60 parking spaces behind the “solar-ready” community center (a solar PV canopy would be installed as part of a separate project). Site work is expected to cost $3.5 million regardless of how the buildings and parking are configured. The figures include site work, construction and “soft costs” (professional fees, owner’s contingency, furniture and equipment, etc.) as explained in the presentation that will be posted soon on the Community Center Building Committee website.
Option 1 (the “100% option”) come to $22.6 million and includes a new two-story building to replace pods A and C, a new maintenance building, and a renovated pod B. Options 1A, 1B and 2 are $16.7 to $18 million, while Option 2A would cost $11.3 million. The four options at 50% and 75% would require some combination of less new construction, not renovating one of the pods, and/or fewer total square feet for programming for Parks and Recreation and the Council on Aging and Human Services.
The price points were set as percentages of a $25 million estimate for two concepts developed by Mary Ann Thomson Architects in 2018. Those concepts were estimated to cost $15.2 million to $16.2 million in 2018 dollars. In 2021, that figure was revised upward by cost estimators to $25.4 million in 2025 dollars. However, Ned Collier of ICON Architects reported that his firm’s cost estimators looked again at the 2018 concepts and determined that they would cost about $30 million today, partly because construction costs have risen by around 8% annually rather than the projected 5%.
“Materials and labor and labor have greatly increased over the intervening years,” he said.
Only Option 1 includes a new maintenance building on the Hartwell campus, which would add about $1 million to the price tags for options 1a, 1B, 2, and 2A. “We ask the town to consider whether this is the highest and best use [as a] large percentage of the project cost,” Collier said. But he got immediate pushback.
“A maintenance building is a must — you can’t not include that in the cost,” said Susan Taylor, the School Committee’s representative on the CCBC.”You can’t just lop off part of this project and say we’ll think about maintenance another day.”
“I’m discouraged that you dispensed with a function that’s currently being provided” in part of pod B, said Buck Creel, former Administrator for Business and Finance for the Lincoln Public Schools. Collier responded that the structure could be added to any of the other options, which (except for option 1A) are “below [cost] targets by a sufficient amount.”
Other residents at the forum were worried about losing the possibility of not renovating the LEAP pods (Options 1A, 1B and 2A) or losing program space. Option 2 would deduct 1,000 square feet, while option 2A would remove 3,000 square feet.
“This doesn’t have enough space for the programs we already have,” said Parks & Recreation Commission member Rob Stringer. “I’m concerned that Lincoln is selling itself short.”
He also noted that if some of the programs of the COA&HS and Park & Rec (which is headquartered in pod C) were to remain in Bemis Hall and an unrenovated pod C respectively, the cost to renovate those buildings would have to be figured in. Collier estimated that a standalone renovation of any of the pods (which would include bringing it up to current building code) would cost $3 million.
If square footage is removed for the COA&HS as per Options 2 and 2A , “what are Abby [Butt, COA&HS director] and her team expected to do?” Select Board member Km Bodnar said. “If you’re building a building that’s shrinking but adding services [over time], how does that make sense if we’re using this building for the next 30 years? I understand the price points but I don’t think we are going in a realistic direction by decreasing the size.”
“More people will be coming,” said resident Wendy Kusik, noting that as the town’s population ages, the need for COA&HS will only increase over time.
Taylor said she had thought before the forum that the three price opinions would deliver the same programming. “What programs or services are we eliminating?” she asked.
“I shared your hope that we would be able to fit the [full] program in each of the scenarios, but changes in the market are really preventing that,” Collier said, adding that “this exercise is cost-driven” and the architects are not taking a position.
There was still some sentiment to scale back the community center size and/or locate some services in other buildings in town. “Do we really need 13,000 square feet? I don’t think so. The rooms we designed are way too big,” said resident David Cuetos.
Over the summer, ICON will flesh out the options with some design detail in preparation for a presentation and charrette at the State of the Town meeting on September 30. Residents will choose a preferred option at a Special Town Meeting on December 2 and then vote to authorize a spending measure at Annual Meeting and at the ballot box in March 2024.