The Lincoln Squirrel

News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

community center*

Community center schemes posted; workshops on Tuesday

The current layout of the Hartwell area and the available parking on the Ballfield Road campus (click to enlarge).

The Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee unveiled a series of concepts on their website on Sunday in advance of two public forums on Tuesday, Jan. 30. The building will be a new home for the Parks and Recreation Department and the Council on Aging as well as other community groups.

Residents will have a chance to examine, discuss, and comment on the concepts from Maryann Thompson Architects and the CCPPDC on Tuesday from 8–10 a.m. or 7–9 p.m. in Hartwell B pod. The concepts call for demolishing at least one of the existing pods and building a community center north of the main Hartwell building, with various configuration options for 100-110 parking spaces, compared to the current 54 spots in the Hartwell lot. Early cost estimates range from $12 million to $16.5 million.

The CCPPDC is working in parallel with the School Building Committee, which unveiled three project concepts for the Lincoln School (as well as options for repair-only and repair-and-minimal-renovation) on January 24.

Based on earlier feedback from residents, the community center architects created some preliminary designs based on guiding principles including:

  • Sustainability
  • Natural light and views
  • A casual gathering space for the Council on Aging that is not shared with other organizations, as well as “nooks” for other small gathering spaces
  • A nexus or center of activity where paths cross
  • A plan that improves the overall condition of the wetlands within the Hartwell area

The plans are summarized below (click on the small images to see larger versions), with pros and cons of each concept as identified by the arhcitects. The full report can be seen here.

Scheme 1 – Central secondary green with peripheral parking ($13–15.5 million)

 
  • Scheme 1 pros
    • Creates Hartwell central green space off of campus main green. Additional exterior activity space.
    • Parking less prominent on site.
    • South-facing entry porch.
    • Site access on two levels because it's built into the hill.
    • Scale of building broken down into smaller volumes. Creates cozy nook spaces.
    • Central nexus of activity with nooks where paths cross.
    • Deck overlooking Hartwell green and main campus green.
    • Building and parking out of wetland setbacks. Green space between allows ground to filter runoff water.
    • Maintaining two pods allows for easier accommodation of existing programs during construction. Pod A could also be demolished after the community center is built, allowing it to also remain in use during construction.
    • Children in Hartwell do not need to cross roads to access all play areas.
    • Building defines many potential exterior rooms.
    • Building’s distance from campus central green reduces noise within building.
  • Scheme 1 cons
    • Parking close to Lincoln Road and property lines; requires screening from road and adjacent houses.
    • Current septic system for Pods cannot be reused.
    • Parking access requires more regrading than centralized parking.
    • Game room not close to COA.
    • Much of the building has an east-west orientation verses being oriented to the south. Southern light to be accessed in these areas through roof articulations.
    • Classrooms at Magic Garden and preschool lose their view of nature.
    • Entry to Magic Garden and preschool conflicts with Central Office. Renovation would be required at Hartwell to solve that conflict.

Scheme 2 – Central main campus with green “L” ($13–15.5 million)

  • Scheme 2 pros
    • Building defines edge and participates in main campus central green.
    • Hartwell secondary green defined.
    • Deck overlooking central green.
    • South-facing covered entry porch.
    • Parking removed from wetlands setback.
    • South-facing nexus of activity with nooks.
    • Existing septic system for pods maintained for reuse.
    • Large south-facing portion of building to employ passive solar strategies.
  • Scheme 2 cons
    • Noise from campus central green close to building.
    • Building within 100 foot setback of wetlands
    • Parking close to property line; requires screening from adjacent house.
    • COA administration one floor up from entry level. Check-in at entry.
    • Children in Hartwell must walk around parking to get to playground near Brooks or cross parking access road.
    • Green space defined by building faces north.

Scheme 3A – Infill with peripheral parking ($13–15.5 million)

 
  • Scheme 3A pros
    • Creates Hartwell central green space off of campus main green. Additional exterior activity space.
    • Parking less prominent on site.
    • Central nexus of activity with nooks where paths cross.
    • New building construction and parking out of wetland setbacks. Green space between allows ground to filter runoff water.
    • Children in Hartwell do not need to cross roads to access all play areas.
    • Building defines exterior courtyards.
    • Building’s distance from campus central green reduces noise within building.
    • Consolidation of building on site leaves more of the site flexible for use.
    • Sustainable reuse of existing structures. Allows for building less new square footage and reduces demolition going to landfills.
    • LEAP incorporated into the building, allowing for the potential of sharing space when not in use with the community center.
    • Existing septic system for pods maintained for reuse.
    • Renovates all of the existing pods (included in cost).
  • Scheme 3A cons
    • Parking close to Lincoln Road and property lines. Requires screening from road and adjacent houses.
    • Parking access requires more regrading than centralized parking.
    • New building has an east-west orientation verses being oriented to the south. Southern light to be accessed through roof articulations.
    • Multipurpose room and adjacent patio are oriented north.
    • LEAP’s incorporation into the building means the proximity of noise from its programs.
    • Existing programs in pods may be difficult to maintain in pods during construction.
    • Requires the renovation of spaces for LEAP and maintenance in pods due to incorporation into new building.

Scheme 3B – Solar infill alternate with peripheral parking ($12.5–15.5 million)

 
  • Scheme 3B pros
    • Existing parking maintained reduces cost of new parking.
    • Central nexus of activity with nooks where paths cross.
    • Children in Hartwell do not need to cross roads to access all play areas.
    • Building defines exterior courtyards.
    • Building’s distance from campus central green reduces noise within building.
    • Consolidation of building on site leaves more of the site flexible for use.
    • Sustainable reuse of existing structures. Allows for building less new square footage and reduces demolition going to landfills.
    • Existing septic system for pods maintained for reuse.
    • New building oriented to the south to employ passive solar strategies.
    • South-facing entry porch.
    • Building entry on courtyard has strong connection to boardwalk to Brooks parking.
    • Renovates all of the existing pods.
  • Scheme 3B cons
    • Parking close to Lincoln Road and property lines. Requires screening from road and adjacent houses.
    • Parking access and drop-off requires more regrading than centralized parking.
    • Existing programs in pods may be difficult to accommodate in pods during construction.
    • Requires the renovation of spaces for LEAP and maintenance in pods due to their relocation.
    • Existing parking remains within wetland setbacks.
    • Classrooms at Magic Garden and preschool lose their view of nature.
    • Entry to Magic Garden and preschool conflicts with Central Office. Renovation would be required at Hartwell to solve that conflict.

Scheme 4A – Woodland path scheme with centralized parking ($13.5–16.5 million)

 
  • Scheme 4A pros
    • Creates Hartwell central green space off of campus main green. Additional exterior activity space.
    • New building construction and parking out of wetland setbacks. Green space between allows ground to filter runoff water.
    • Building’s distance from campus central green reduces noise within building.
    • Existing septic system for pods maintained for reuse.
    • Building entry lobby has strong connection to boardwalk to Brooks parking.
    • Building is oriented to the south to employ passive solar strategies.
    • Central consolidated parking is efficient.
    • South-facing entry porch.
  • Scheme 4A cons
    • Parking very prominent on site and very visible from building.
    • Children in Hartwell must walk around parking to get to playground near Brooks or cross parking access road.
    • Length of building results in long corridors and no central nexus of activity.
    • Existing programs in pods can only be accommodated in Pod A during construction.
    • Requires the renovation of spaces for LEAP due to relocation in Pod A.
    • New building within 100 -oot setback from wetlands.
    • Not feasible because maintenance cannot be relocated to Hartwell. Need to locate maintenance elsewhere (unresolved).

Scheme 4B – Woodland path alternate with centralized parking ($12–14 million)​

 
  • Scheme 4B pros

    -Existing parking maintained reduces cost of new parking.
    -Building’s distance from campus central green reduces noise within building.
    -Existing septic system for Pods maintained for reuse.
    -Building entry lobby has strong connection to boardwalk to Brooks parking.
    -South facing entry porch with potential of porte cohere..
    -Children in Hartwell do not need to cross roads to access all play areas.
    -Scale of building broken down into smaller volumes. Creates cozy nook spaces.
    -Central nexus of activity with nooks where paths cross.
    -Maintaining (2) pods allows for easier accommodation of existing programs during construction
    -South facing deck with views of central campus green.
    -Building defi nes many potential exterior rooms.
    -South facing entry porch.

  • Scheme 4B cons
    • Parking very prominent on site and visible from building.
    • Requires the renovation of spaces for LEAP due to relocation in Pod A.
    • New building minimally within 100 foot setback from wetlands.
    • Building has minimal orientation to the south. Southern light to be accessed through roof articulations.
    • Courtyard formed by building faces north.
    • Existing parking remains within wetland setbacks.

Officials at multi-board meeting mull campus project questions

Officials shared recent town financial data and outlined questions that will have to be answered about the two proposed campus projects at a joint meeting of four boards on January 9.

Some residents are feeling sticker shock after learning the projected costs for a school project, let alone a community center, but most agree that both are needed. “These projects are about key components of our community, and we need to navigate a complicated and nuanced cost-benefit analysis,” Selectman Jennifer Glass said.

There will be community forums on preliminary design options for the two projects later this month. The School Building Committee will host workshops on Tuesday, Jan. 23 from 8–10 a.m. and 7–9 p.m. in the Reed Gym, while the Community Center Planning and Preliminary Design Committee will host sessions on Tuesday, Jan. 30 from 8–10 a.m. and 7–9 p.m. in the Hartwell B pod.

The SBC learned late last year that a basic project to make repairs and bring the school building up to code would cost about $46 million, while a comprehensive project with more new construction could cost anywhere from $73 million to more than $90 million. A preliminary estimate in 2015 put the cost of a community center at about $13 million.

Selectmen this week presented a detailed list of questions and issues that officials and residents must tackle in advance of a special Town Meeting in June, when they will be asked to vote on a preferred design for the school. Among those questions:

  • How can the value of different project solutions be compared?
  • What are the implications of phasing the two projects vs. bonding and/or building both at the same time?
  • What are the short- and long-term cost implications of making the buildings as energy-efficient and sustainable as possible?
  • How well will the two project concepts “fit” the campus?
  • What are the data from other towns regarding finances?
  • How much can the town borrow and still keep its AAA bond rating, and what happens if it doesn’t?
Property tax impact

Finance Committee Chair Jim Hutchinson updated town property tax data and potential borrowing costs that the panel first presented last spring. A recent consultation with the town’s bond advisor revealed that the town could borrow up to $100 million without losing its AAA rating—up from an estimated $80 million last year, Hutchinson said.

The FinCom also learned that state law currently caps the town’s permissible debt at $106 million. The town currently has about $9 million in outstanding debt, leaving a $97 million new borrowing limit. However, the town can appeal for a higher amount and would probably have a strong case since the debt would fund a needed school project (as opposed to a sports stadium, for example) and MSBA funding is not in the mix.

The estimated median household tax increase—unchanged since last spring—is $275–$310 per $10 million borrowed, meaning a rise of about $3,100 if the town were to borrow $100 million and repay it over a 30-year period, Hutchinson said. The tax rate would rise from the current 13.7 mills (1 mill translates to $1 in tax for every $1,000 of a home’s assessed value) to somewhere between 16 and 17 mils—still lower than Carlisle, Sudbury and Wayland.

In fiscal 2017, the average assessed value of a single-family home in Lincoln was $1,108,423 and the average tax bill was $15,185. Depending on the amount borrowed ($60 million, $80 million or $100 million), the average tax bill would climb to roughly $17,733 to $18,900. However, the town would apply a chunk of its debt stabilization fund (currently at $4.7 million) to soften the impact of the first few years of repayment.

Right now, compared to seven surrounding towns, Lincoln has the second-highest average tax bill but the lowest debt-to-operating cost ratio, the second-lowest tax rate, and the lowest average annual growth rate in tax bills since 1999 (2.7 percent), Hutchinson said.

Borrowing costs

If the town’s bond rating were to drop from AAA to AA+ as a result of borrowing more than $100 million, future borrowing costs would rise, but “it wouldn’t make much of a dollar impact” on property tax bills, Hutchinson said. However, he added, “it takes years of hard work to raise your credit rating… it’s pretty easy to lose it and kind of hard to get it back.” Among the seven neighboring towns, all but Carlisle have a AAA rating.

The financial implications of borrowing one large sum all at once or in two segments a few years apart are fairly minor, Hutchinson said. Borrowing the whole amount at once could save about 0.15 percent in interest on the first $10–$15 million of the debt, but that affects only 10–15 percent of a $100 million bond, he noted.

When comparing construction costs to the lifetime costs of a project (including expected repairs and energy use), “I would put this in the no-brainer category,” Hutchinson said. The FinCom recommends making decisions based on the total lifetime cost of a project, meaning that (for example) it makes sense to spend more on energy-efficient features that will more than pay for themselves in future savings.

Future capital expenses

Looking ahead to future borrowing needs outside of the school and community center, the Hartwell building may need a new roof in 2020 at a cost of about $660,000, and as in past years, there will likely be multimillion-dollar land acquisitions that can’t be identified yet, said Audrey Kalmus, chair of the Capital Planning Committee.

Other possible expenses include a new roof for Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School in about 2021 (Lincoln’s share would be about $300,000), a new fire engine in 2023 ($575,000) and renovation of the Brooks athletic field at an undetermined date ($400,000).

The most recent big-ticket items for the town were $5.8 million in 2012 for the town office building renovation and $5.5 million for a road project in 2009. The next major road project won’t be needed until about 2035, Kalmus said.

Community center draft designs expected in January

Preliminary designs for a community center on the Hartwell campus will be presented at public forums on Tuesday, Jan. 30 from 8–10 a.m. and 7–9 p.m. in the Hartwell B pod.

At the November 4 State of the Town Meeting and afterwards, the Community Center Planning and Preliminary Design Committee (CCPPDC) asked residents for feedback on a “character study” (a series of photos of other community centers) and a “wish list” with in-depth questions about what the facility should include to meet the town’s needs.

Lots of natural light and views, a place that’s interesting to go to architecturally, and a desire for a strong connection to the site and for the creation of outdoor gathering space were among the themes in the responses to the surveys. The architectural team has since met with Council on Aging and Parks and Recreation staff to discuss the two group’s program needs, and they also toured several facilities to gather ideas for further discussion.

“These meetings primarily gave us a greater understanding of how each group operates today, the breadth of their programs, what works in their current spaces that they want to maintain, and what doesn’t work. This understanding will help us greatly as we start to lay out the program and develop the designs,” an MTA representative said via email last week.

One of the biggest take-aways from the tours of other community centers was about storage—”these buildings had an amazing amount of storage distributed throughout the buildings, but it was not enough,” MTA reported. However, “all the centers that we visited were very active, and they had all seen a huge increase in participation in programs with their new spaces.”

Architects ask for reactions to school and community center possibilities

The current school campus showing when various sections were built.

(Editor’s note: Check back tomorrow for more coverage of the State of the Town meeting.)

At Saturday’s State of the Town meeting, residents began offering feedback on six concept drawings for a reconfigured Lincoln School as well as some photos of community center ideas.

The school campus drawings by Ewing-Cole and SMMA Architects represented only ideas for where various parts of the school could be located relative to each other on campus, rather than actual building outlines and walls, explained SMMA’s Joel Seeley. The presentation also did not address parking, fields and roadways, and it intentionally looked at a mostly new or completely new buildings.

All six designs had some features in common:

  • Academic hubs organized by grade level in for PreK–4 and by team teaching mode for grades 5–8.
  • Separate entrances for PreK, K–4, and 5–8.
  • Classrooms as well as breakout spaces for students groups of varying sizes and abilities in each hub.
  • Facilities for “specials” (art, music, science, and maker spaces) located close to the hubs.
  • A single dining commons and kitchen for the entire school.

The concepts are categorized in three groups according to whether the school building is concentrated in the current “L” configuration (Group A), or on the north or west side of the ballfield (Groups B and C). Some distinguishing features:

  • A1 — Retains the two gyms and auditorium, and is closest in shape to the current school.
  • A2 — Follows the same basic shape but in a curved rather than L-shaped fashion, with two new gyms and the existing auditorium.
  • B1 — A northern focus with five two-story linear classroom hubs, retaining and enclosing the Reed Gym and auditorium.
  • B2 — An all-new building on the north side, with a gym and theater space next to each other but separated from the rest of the school by a commons area to demarcate school and public uses.
  • C1 — A western focus having the clearest plan for two separate schools in one. Includes a new gym and a glassed-in or covered walkway to the existing auditorium.
  • C2 — A western focus with a ring of angled hubs around a central piazza and a new gym between the classrooms and the auditorium.

The concepts and explanations can be seen on the School Building Committee website. See larger versions of the drawings by clicking on one of the images below:

At the State of the Town, residents offered written comments, but others may use the SBC’s online feedback form. The form asks what viewers saw or heard that they liked, what they wished would be developed further, and what they wonder about, or what questions should be answered.

The SBC and architects will continue to gather public input and refine the concepts in the coming months. Residents will be asked to vote on a design concept at a special town meeting in June 2018. By that point, officials hope to have a plan that has “overwhelming community support. We don’t want to get to a vote in June and wonder what we missed,” said Chris Fasciano, chair of the SBC.

Community center

The Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee (CCPPDC) recently hired Maryann Thompson Architects to work alongside SMMA and design a proposal for a community center. Their first step at State of the Town was to post “character study” photos of various community center interiors, exteriors, and landscapes and asked residents to jot down “gut reactions” on sticky notes with comments on the easels.

The architects are hoping for more detailed feedback via a “wish list” questionnaire on the CCPPDC website, which also includes the images shown on Saturday and an accompanying comment form. Residents are invited to download the questionnaire, answer whichever parts they wish, and email it back by noon on Friday, Nov. 10. The firm expects to have a proposed basic design along with “firm cost estimates” before the special town meeting in June, which will also address the school.

There are various advantages and disadvantages to having the community center physically connected to the school rather than on the Hartwell side, noted Town Administrator Tim Higgins. He briefly touched on some of those pluses and minuses as outlined by a group including the two school principals, Parks and Recreation Department Director Dan Pereira, Council on Aging Director Carolyn Bottum, and Administrator for Business and Finance Buck Creel.

Factors mitigating against having the two facilities side by side, according to their report:

  • There would be less space for athletic fields on the school side and the topography of the Hartwell side would also make it difficult to put a field there.
  • Sharing space would be impractical since the hours of operation of the school and community center would largely overlap.
  • The parking on the north and west side of campus would have to be significantly increased and the roadway network would have to be rethought.
  • There would be public safety and security concerns associated with keeping the various building users separate and out of restricted spaces.
Finances

The town can afford to borrow up to $80 million for the projects and still retain its AAA bond rating, said Andrew Payne, vice chair of the Finance Committee. Each $10 million borrowed would increase the tax bill by about $275–300 per year, depending on the interest rate. The current median tax bill is $13,600.

The FinCom’s debt financing subcommittee also recommends that the town should make bond payments that are more or less equal throughout a 30-year term. Some of the town’s debt stabilization fund, currently at $4.7 million, can be used to even out some of the tax bill impact in the first few years, Payne added.

Updates on multitude of issues planned for State of the Town

An agenda chock-full of information and discussion about issues affecting Lincoln’s future will greet residents at the State of the Town meeting on Saturday, Nov. 4 from 9 a.m.–12:30 p.m. in the Lincoln School auditorium. The event offers informational updates on important issues in town and (in some cases) a preview of measures that will come up for votes at the Annual Town Meeting in spring 2018.

The first 90 minutes will consist of presentations the two proposed campus building projects: the Lincoln School building project and the Community Center project. Recent Lincoln Squirrel articles on these topics include:

Other agenda items are below, and are also discussed in the latest Selectmen’s Newsletter. There will then be an open forum from 11:40 a.m.–noon and an opportunity to talk to representatives of the groups who presented during the meeting at information/discussion tables from 12:30–1 p.m.

Lincoln Station

The South Lincoln Implementation Planning Committee is studying improvements to the Lincoln Station area as well as possible rezoning, though a proposed zoning bylaw change is not likely by spring. There are five teams working on different topics for SLPIC, which reports to the Planning Board.

Plastic bags and bottles

The Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School Environmental Club is revisiting its push to regulate the sale of disposable plastic grocery bags and single-use plastic water bottles in Lincoln. Warrant articles were tabled in Town Meeting in 2017 but passed in Sudbury. Town Meeting will feature either warrant articles or a general bylaw change proposal.

Recreational marijuana

The Board of Selectmen is forming a committee to help the town understand the 2016 statewide measure that legalized the cultivation, personal use and retail sale of recreational marijuana. The group will assess the law’s implications for Lincoln and make recommendations regarding potential policies, bylaws and regulations that may be desired and/or required to protect the town’s interests. Town Administrator Timothy Higgins said this week that a bylaw proposal may come up at a Special Town Meeting later in 2018 rather than the annual spring meeting.

To learn more about the committee, contact Higgins at 781-259-2604 or higginst@lincolntown.org. To apply, submit a letter of interest to Administrative Assistant Peggy Elder at elderp@lincolntown.org.

At Town Meeting in 2017, residents approved a moratorium on allowing use of land or structures for recreational marijuana establishments until November 30, 2018 pending new regulations from the Cannabis Control Commission and possible zoning amendments in Lincoln.

Historic District

The Historic District Commission and Friends of Modern Architecture are working with property owners interested in adding their Modern houses to the Lincoln Historic District. At Town Meeting, residents will vote on a proposal that would allow at least 17 owners of Modern homes to voluntarily join the Lincoln Historic District. The district currently consists of 73 properties in four different areas.

Sanctuary Town

A planned Town Meeting measure seeks to make Lincoln an official Sanctuary Town, which organizers hope will safeguard illegal immigrants in Lincoln from federal immigration enforcement and otherwise help immigrants feel protected

Mothers Out Front

This group has been working on local responses to climate change such as curbing greenhouse gas emissions by fixing gas leaks from underground pipes. Members are expected to propose a resolution at Town Meeting calling for the repair of utilities’ leaking gas pipes.

Community center group selects architect

The Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee (CCPPDC) has selected the firm of Maryann Thompson Architects to help design a proposal for a community center for Lincoln.

Massachusetts work by the Cambridge-based firm includes designs for the Atrium School in Watertown, the Broad Institute in Cambridge, the Walden Pond visitors’ center, and Temple Ahavat Achim in Gloucester. The firm is already working closely with SMMA Architects, which was hired to design the Lincoln School project.

The CCPPDC and the School Building Committee will present updates at the State of the Town meeting on November 4. By that time, “we want the two architectural firms to have spoken quite a bit and start aligning their processes and procedures, and maybe put a couple of community forums on the calendar,” said CCPPDC Vice Chair Margit Griffith.

Maryann Thompson Architects should have a proposed basic design for a community center along with firm cost estimates ready before an anticipated Special Town Meeting in June, when residents will be asked to vote on a school design, Griffith said. If and when residents decide to pursue the community center project, the town will ask for bids from firms to do the detailed design. “They’re not producing a plan for a community center that people vote on [in June] and break ground on,” she said.

The CCPPDC is drafting a timeline in conjunction with the SBC with “key choice points for decisions and deliverables by the architect,” said committee Chair Ellen Meyer Shorb. Designing a school and a community center simultaneously is “a really difficult, complex process that no one has done before, but the bottom line is to include the town early and often.”

 

 

 

Two sessions on school, community center scheduled

Superintendent of Schools Becky McFall and educational planners from two architectural firms will lead two workshop sessions on Tuesday, Oct. 17 at 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. in the Brooks gym, focusing on how architecture and design can support educational goals. They will share the priorities expressed by educators during a September 28 all-day visioning session, show examples of other schools, and engage the community in discussion about specific concepts and educational spaces.

On Wednesday, Oct. 11 at 7 p.m. in the Hartwell Multipurpose Room, the School Building Committee (SBC) and members of the Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee (PPDC) will learn more about community priorities through a series of short presentations from the Historical Commission, Public Safety, the Planning Board, the Green Energy Committee, the Conservation Commission, and the Commission on Disabilities. Added to previous presentations from Parks & Recreation and the Water Commission, these conversations will help the SBC, PPDC, and the community understand the complex series of opportunities and issues that must be balanced as work moves forward.

Dozens of residents came to two September 28 sessions to explore the future of the Ballfield Road campus. The sessions were facilitated by the architectural firm SMMA, which was hired by the SBC in partnership with EwingCole in August. In addition to the design team, members of the SBC and the PPDC were there to listen and learn from the professionals and the community.

Both the morning and evening sessions featured information-sharing and gathering as SMMA used five possible campus configurations to generate discussion and to more deeply understand Lincoln’s collective priorities for a revitalized campus, one that will cohesively accommodate a preK-8 school and possibly a community center on one site. Echoed continuously by both the community and the architects was a commitment to preserving the unique character of our campus, while at the same time defining a forward-looking vision that improves the campus experience for students and Lincolnites of all ages for years to come.

The September 28 evening workshop can be viewed online here.

Five campus possibilities offered at SBC workshop

School Building Committee architects proposed some master planning objectives for the Ballfield Road campus as well as five general options for locating the various aspects of the Lincoln School around that campus at a public workshop on October 3.

Before they even began presenting their thoughts, resident Steve Perlmutter summed up his feelings about the campus that are shared by many of those who rejected the 2012 school design that would have encroached on the central ball field and significantly reconfigured the north side of campus.

“I’m concerned that if we’re not very careful, we could lose much of this special place and with it, a large part of Lincoln’s soul, character, and heritage,” said Perlmutter, noting that he was speaking as a private citizen and not in his capacity as a member of the SBC. The school campus is “stunning and bucolic” and “quintessentially Lincoln,” he said. “We need to keep on asking ourselves if what you propose to do belongs to the land instead of the other way around.”

The ball field is “one for those central gems you would never get back if you developed it, agreed Sandra Farrell, a landscape architect with SMMA Architects, adding that the field and the healthy trees around it are “more or less sacrosanct)

The firm’s planning objectives for a multigenerational, multiprogram campus include developing a healthy network of trees and pathways around school buildings and between community spaces including the tennis courts and the pool. The final plan should also foster educational goals while also creating cohesion between new and old elements and demonstrating stewardship of the land, she said.

Before thinking about what structures should be renovated or replaced, SMMA principal architect Alex Pitkin encouraged residents to think about five configurations—taking into account locations, “adjacencies,” building heights, and even overlap—for four main elements (see below):

  • PreK–4
  • Grades 5–8
  • Common areas that the public could also use outside school hours such as the auditorium, gyms, and cafeteria(s)
  • Community center elements including the Council on Aging, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Lincoln Extended-day Activities Program.

“Sometimes it’s very effective to move functions around a building, whether it’s renovated or rebuilt,” Pitkin said.

The next public workshop will focus on educational vision and will take place in two identical sessions on one day: Tuesday, Oct. 14 from 2–4 p.m. and 7–9 p.m. in the Brooks gym. For more information on the history of the project, news and upcoming events, go to lincolnsbc.org.

Click on an image to see larger version:

Letter to the editor: ‘think big’ on school campus planning

letter

To the editor:

Let’s think big together on Tuesday, Oct. 3 at 8 a.m. or 7 p.m. in the Brooks Gym (Ballfield Road community campus).

Lincoln does best when Lincoln thinks big. We were reminded of this last Wednesday at the Bemis Lecture Series, when the Trustees of the Ogden Codman Trust spoke of the history of the Codman Estate, Codman Farm, the Mall at Lincoln Station, and Lincoln Woods.

Years prior to the disposition of the Codman estate, Lincoln had a dream and a plan for the land around the Codman house and beyond. The ideas were big-picture planning and would not necessarily be put in place all at the same time, but there was a grand plan. When the land became available for purchase, the town was ready to act. Public/private partnerships and collaboration with those responsible for managing the settlement of Dorothy Codman’s estate began to implement the plan, piece by piece. First Codman Farm, then Lincoln Woods and the mall, and then more land and fields around them were bought by either the town or the Rural Land Foundation (RLF).

It was a legacy project. Lincoln thought big, and we are all the beneficiaries. Now we are at a crossroads where we have another opportunity—and responsibility—to think big again.

We have major development challenges ahead. We have important open space that must be protected. We’re looking for ways to “revitalize” the mall and Lincoln Station. We will need more town-initiated affordable housing to prevent the kind of 350-unit development now going up in Weston, which could have dramatic negative impacts on schools and budgets. We need to provide services for our seniors to maintain stability in our age-diverse population. And, of pressing importance, we need to rebuild our aging schools.

The community campus, established in 1932 for recreational purposes and expanded to include schools and a town auditorium in 1947, is now offering an opportunity and a challenge to think big again. The town has endorsed rebuilding schools and creating a recreation/community center on this campus. In addition, the campus will continue to host early childhood and after-school programs. But how to make it all work, both in terms of space and budget?

That is where we all need to step up and take a hard, creative look. We need to think big. We need to accept that maybe everything will not and cannot be done at once, but it needs to be planned together. What kind of building(s) will best serve education for the next 25 years? What kind of buildings might be multi-purpose and share space? What kind of buildings would be the most energy-efficient and save money over the long term? What space and building locations work now, and which don’t?

While design professionals will guide the process, Lincoln has always done best when we put our heads together, listen to each other, ask “crazy” questions, think out of the box, and show no fear.

Let’s do just that. Let’s THINK BIG. Let’s take a big step to create another legacy project together on Tuesday, Oct. 3,

Sincerely,

Sara Mattes
71 Conant Rd.

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: CCPPDC offers updates

letter

To the editor:

“Community Center Preliminary Planning and Design Committee”—with a name like that, we can’t help but succeed in our mission to bring a preliminary design to the town for consideration when discussing the current state of and future goals for the Ballfield Road campus. The townfolk spoke and the town representatives heard you: there should be collaboration between any and all committees striving to improve the nature and service of the Ballfield Road buildings.

But let’s start with introductions. Your CCPPDC members are Owen Beenhouwer, Sarah Chester, Doug Crosby, Jonathan Dwyer (for the Board of Selectmen), Steve Gladstone, Margit Griffith (vice chair, Parks and Recreation Commission), Eric Harris, Ellen Meyer Shorb (chair), Dilla Tingley, Town Administrator Tim Higgins, Director of Council on Aging Carolyn Bottum, and Director of Parks and Recreation Dan Pereira.

We have been tasked with providing the town with a community center design on the Ballfield Road campus in answer to the Lincoln community’s desire for a cohesive, cost-effective and community-spirited plan for Lincoln. We hope to provide enough information to help answer questions such as:

  • What is the realistic cost of a serviceable community center?
  • What does a community center do differently from other town spaces, and why is this important? (Much of this already addressed by prior studies, and we’re happy to review.)
  • Is it feasible and fiscally responsible to build the school and community center simultaneously or sequentially?
  • Can/should the same architect and/or construction company build both?
  • May the school and community center be built at the same time, or does the school need to keep current Hartwell buildings intact for alternate classrooms during the school build? Or are there other factors?

…and we hope to answer the questions you and we don’t know about yet!

The CCPPDC met a few times over the summer and has opened the request for quotes from architectural firms to work with us, reviewed their quotes, and is scheduling interviews. Our next step will be to choose a firm with which to work and to introduce them to you, the School Building Committee (SBC) and the architect they have chosen (if different)… which leads to a first response to the question “can we use the same architect?”

Well, yes and no. School buildings are very specialized structures and the architectural firms who design them tend to be quite focused on just that type of building. An architectural firm that promises they can do anything from a storage shed to a 20-story building probably isn’t the firm we’re hoping will design our next school building. Similarly, community centers tend to be a bit of a different creature and some firms make these designs their specialty. The SBC and CCPPDC have made it very clear to all parties that this is a collaborative effort by our two groups and we are requiring similar collaboration if the selected firms are different.

You will be hearing from the CCPPDC as we progress. You are always welcome to attend our open meetings and we hope to have a few community feedback events as plans develop. We will be at the SBC visioning meetings on October 3 and 17—will you? Once a month, a joint update will be provided by the SBC and CCPPDC, and you will likely see brief updates about one committee in the updates from the other. We’re also working on a CCPPDC page on the town website and hope to make more informative very soon.

Sincerely,

Margit Griffith on behalf of the CCPPD

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.