The Lincoln Squirrel – News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

community center*

My Turn: CCBC offers revised site plans but no cost estimates

By Lynne Smith

Editor’s note: the CCBC’s next regular meetings (Zoom only) are scheduled for July 26 and August 16 at 7:30 p.m. See the CCBC home page for Zoom links.

At the June 28 Community Center Building Committee meeting, ICON offered three new site plans that differed significantly from the earlier plans — the parking was located in front of the main building, not behind it. This major change delighted many of us who were concerned about the loss of the green space if the parking lot were placed behind the building. While no cost estimates are available yet, project manager Mark McKivitz suggested that this new plan might reduce the cost of the site work, which had been estimated at $3.5 million for all earlier plans. McKivitz noted that the cost estimate for the new plans would take about three weeks to develop.

The committee offered additional data for Council on Aging event attendance, though several people at the meeting complained that the numbers seemed inflated to justify larger spaces and thus a larger building. Committee member Alison Taunton-Rigby voiced concerns about the building size and said she will continue to study the issue over the summer months. Dennis Picker pointed out that almost 2,000 square feet was earmarked for reception areas, lobbies, waiting spaces and offices occupied only part-time. In contrast, committee member Dilla Tingley noted that she thinks we need to build space for future use as the Lincoln population ages. She also said that other towns that built new community centers experienced a sharp increase in attendance. These are complex issues and it was good to hear them openly addressed by the committee members as well as residents at the meeting.

Despite these concerns, the committee voted to “accept” rather than “approve” the attendance numbers for ICON’s continued work during the summer. If these numbers are used, the building space required for COA&HS, PRD, LEAP, and maintenance appears to be a total of 20,000 square feet — some in renovated buildings and some in new construction. With costs per square foot at about $1,100, the building size is of serious concern.

All in all, the new site plans show that the architects and the committee members are listening to the public. Personally, I want to see a plan that comes in at or below the 50% option, which is about $12.5 million. I think a plan at that cost level will pass at the town vote. I fear that the higher levels will fail. ICON has their work for the summer cut out for them.

CCBC will hold one meeting in July and one meeting in August with ICON. These meetings will set the stage for more detailed plans for the September 30 State of the Town meeting. I urge everyone to attend the July and August meetings and sign up for emails from CCBC 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.

My Turn: CCBC meetings focus on building size and parking lot

By Lynne Smith

One of the reasons many of us suggested looking at other buildings in town to host programs for seniors was to reduce the size of buildings required on the small Hartwell campus. The space there is precious, especially the green space that hosts the approximately 150 children at LEAP and Magic Garden. Concerns about the size of the buildings and the location of the parking lot were discussed at both the June 13 public forum and the June 14 regular CCBC meeting.

At the public forum, ICON architect Ned Collier presented five site plans illustrating five cost levels. The plans included a variety of buildings: a new two-story building, a new one-story building, and renovations of existing pods. All plans required removal of the existing parking lot and a new one installed at the back of the building. All plans included the same cost of $3.5 million for site work. (Full description of the plans and the meeting included in the Lincoln Squirrel on June 14 and on the Lincoln Community Center website.)

Committee members and public attendees were seeing these plans for the first time and it was a lot to take in. I appreciated the printed version provided to those of us attending in person. For the 35 people on line, it must have been difficult to process so much information. Collier cautioned us that these were not “designs” but site plans.

For those of us who were hoping for a viable low-cost option, the site plan labeled 2A was a good start. The plan called for housing programs in 10,000 square feet located in total renovation of pods A and B. Many in town believe that 9,000 to 10,000 square feet is sufficient for accommodating all the “needed” programs. However, as with all five plans, the parking lot behind the building came at the expense of the green space. Parents of children at LEAP and Magic Garden expressed concern as they realized what the loss of the playing areas would mean to the 150 after-school and 120 preschool children.

At the June 14 meeting, CCBC Chair Sarah Chester announced the agenda as a discussion of the comments from the forum the night before. Instead, committee members spent over an hour discussing the siting of the parking lot but did not reach a consensus decision. The discussion was important, but it should have been conducted in a working group weeks ago with ICON providing topography and other technical information.

The parking discussion delayed a topic that was at the core of the comments at the public forum: the attendance data that supports the required square footage. COA Director Abby Butt has provided a great deal of data but it does not include numbers for “actual attendance.” Serious people in Lincoln are asking for this data because they don’t want to support a building that is larger than required. Susan Taylor commented that this information is critical for answering community questions about the actual size required to meet program needs. Peter von Mertens suggested that these numbers be gathered for COA programs. (PRD attendance data has already been posted on the CCBC website.) Jonathan Dwyer volunteered to help Butt develop these numbers and bring them back to the committee in the next week or two. Collier said that ICON needed confidence that this number was solid for final development of the schematic design.

In the last few minutes of the meeting as it opened to the public, Dennis Picker read a prepared set of comments about ways to reduce the amount of “shared space” by utilizing existing town-owned buildings. He had carefully looked at the programs listed for the COA and concluded that about 1,500 square feet of space could be saved by having several regular programs at the Pierce House and Bemis Hall. Locating these programs off site would mean that a 9,000-to-10,000-square-foot option on the Hartwell campus would not leave out valuable programs. He also proposed minimizing the amount of area devoted to lobby, reception area, and waiting rooms.

We need to consider carefully Picker’s suggestion, COA attendance data, and the location of the parking lot. I believe there is an opportunity to put a new building on the existing footprint of Pod A and leave the parking lot where it is. We could then do a slight remodel of Pod B so it could continue to be used for the maintenance facility and COA and PRD programs. That will save the wonderful green space and play areas at the back of the building. If the parking lot is undisturbed, we might not have to worry about the wetlands setback and the site work would be minimized. A walkway to the Brooks Gym parking lot could be used for additional parking.

The committee will have one more meeting in June to confirm the attendance data, square footage required, and site plans so ICON can proceed with design over the summer. CCBC will schedule one meeting in July and one in August with ICON. These meetings will be posted on the community center website. As always, I urge everyone in town to participate in these meetings before we make a final decision on the community center.

“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.

Architects unveil cost estimates for community center

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.

My Turn: CCBC authorizes a 75% program option for ICON cost estimation

By Lynne Smith

Community Center Building Committee Sarah Chester opened the CCBC’s May 31 meeting by reiterating the group’s commitment to two cost options for a community center: 50% and 75% of the 2018 project cost of $25 million, as required at the Special Town Meeting in November 2022.The committee is focused on a consolidated program in a single new building with Parks & Recreation (PRD) and Council on Aging & Human Services (COA & HS) grouped into shared and non-shared space.

After much discussion of the program spaces, the committee ended the meeting with a vote to accept an area of 9,320 net square feet for cost estimation by ICON Architects. The committee said this will become the 75% option for program space and reflects a reduction of 10,000 square feet from the 2018 proposal by eliminating such things as a teaching kitchen and lobby café. The reduction in space is impressive, but the architects and the committee must reduce it even further to achieve a 50% option with a price tag of $12.5 million.

At the upcoming June 13 public forum, the committee expects ICON to present both options, including cost estimates for site preparation, a new building, and parking lots. ICON’s Ned Collier promised at the first public meeting with CCBC that each option would be a “complete, viable alternative,”* and we are waiting to see how that assurance will be met.

At the May 31 meeting, several residents asked pointed questions and initiated discussions:

Magic Garden and Lincoln Preschool — Sara Mattes questioned why the private Magic Garden preschool housed in the 7,000-square-foot Hartwell Building couldn’t be moved elsewhere in town, perhaps to a space at St. Anne’s-in-the-Fields church recently vacated by another preschool, so the town-owned building could be used for public community center purposes. Lori Leo, the director of Magic Garden, explained that the St. Anne’s space was too small for the full school and would require significant modification to house the infant/toddler group, which has since moved to the Stone Church of First Parish. School staff and Magic Garden representatives highlighted the importance, for parents and school staff, of having the Magic Garden preschool on the Hartwell campus.

Mattes also asked about having the preschool housed at the K-8 school. Becky McFall, retiring School Superintendent, explained that the public preschool was for children aged 2-5 needing special education for developmental issues. While this discussion seemed to put to rest the idea of moving Magic Garden, the discussion illustrated the potential use of available church space for town-sponsored activities.

Attendance and benchmark data — David Cuetos reiterated his request for actual program attendance data, not just room capacity. Collier explained that the committee had this data and it would be made available on the CCBC website. Cuetos also asked for a benchmark analysis comparing spaces and costs with similar projects in other towns. Collier and Chester declined to do this, noting that no other town had a comparable project combining Parks and Recreation with a Council on Aging and Human Services in a single building. Information on both of these topics would help the community understand actual, not just possible, usage and how Lincoln compares to other towns. Such data has been promised at many meetings and its lack has made informed questions and comments for both the committee and the public difficult. I hope to see both attendance and benchmark data soon on the community center website.

Reduction in shared and non-shared spaces — Dennis Picker came prepared with a detailed table and rationale for significant reductions in room sizes from the prior programming matrix. The committee responded that some of these reductions had been made in the updated program shown at the meeting, but Picker pointed out that many other reductions were still possible and would be necessary if the town is to see a viable 50% cost option. Picker reflects the desire of many in town to see a modest proposal that they would be willing to accept.

Public concerns — Susan Taylor, School Committee liaison to CCBC, suggested that the above concerns raised by the public be addressed in writing, distributed to the town, and put on the CCBC website so that Lincoln residents could understand the rationale. Krystal Wood and the communications committee agreed to do so.

*    *    *

As an amender of the Special Town Meeting motion to authorize the architectural study of a community center, I am still interested in seeing if a 50% cost option is viable and attractive — and if not, that the vision of a single, new, consolidated space be revisited, and that the use of available spaces in town (some of which would require modification) be considered.

ICON promised to identify needs vs. aspirations. Some of the programs currently put forth appear to be aspirational, such as having three congregate senior luncheons per week with 50 people at each. This is not a required activity and the projected participation numbers seem high, given anecdotal reports of the current once-a-week attendance of 15-30 seniors. The suggested five hours in the kitchen every day for Meals on Wheels still has not been explained. Finally, many of the non-shared spaces such as offices for part-time and summer staff, which were not discussed at the meeting, seem larger than needed and could easily be located in available spaces in town or at our K-8 school.

This complex project is gathering steam and requires everyone’s attention. But as summer approaches, I fear that we will all find better things to do than look at charts, tables and program spaces on the LincolnCommunityCenter.com website. I urge everyone to come to the June 13 public forum, which will likely give ICON the direction and authorization to proceed with plans for a September presentation. At that point, the train will really be pulling out of the station with or without all passengers on board!

* At the March 8 meeting, ICON architects “said they would identify ‘needs’ vs. ‘aspirations’ with each option [offering] a complete, viable alternative. They also emphasized their experience designing sustainable buildings with very low energy use and excellent air quality and said these qualities would be ‘baked into’ to all options” (from the Lincoln Squirrel, March 13, “My Turn: CCBC introduces architects and shares concerns”).

“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.

My Turn: Site plan shows the downside of a consolidated community center

By Lynne Smith

(Editor’s note: the Lincoln Squirrel was out  of town on May 23 and unable to cover the forum.)

Before the May 23 Community Center Building Committee forum, I walked with several others around the campus to understand what the new site plans would mean for the existing property. It was a beautiful time of day with sunlight slanting through the gorgeous old trees that encircled the tiny old pods. Lush grass and kids’ trails through the woods from Lincoln Road made me yearn to be a child in Lincoln.

Proposed parking spaces, wetland conservation restrictions, and limited buildable land are squeezing the site plans for a community center building on the Hartwell campus. The large parking areas proposed for each of the five alternatives presented dwarf the renovated and new buildings in the schemes shown by Ned Collier of ICON Architecture, who described the five site plans that are posted on the CCBC website.

Collier described in detail the need for setbacks from the underground river that must be crossed to enter the campus. Conservation restrictions would require tearing up the existing parking lot and adding a swale to protect the river. Parking spaces would then be farther from the main road with a two-way entry to the campus instead of the one-way entry and one-way exit, which are now in place.

Each of the five schemes includes a new two-story building replacing pod A and different levels of renovation for LEAP and the pod B buildings. The schemes also show the green space, needed as playgrounds and fields for children in the LEAP program. In all the plans, a new parking lot dominates and doubles the existing 50 spaces.

Consolidating two populations in one community center is driving the CCBC effort, overruling the expressed desire of the town to “supplement or not with existing available town spaces.” With the COA staff and many seniors coming and going, the already crowded Hartwell campus will become even busier. The need for holding many activities in other sites is clearer than ever.

I want to raise the issue of parking space to a high level of concern. We are now doing everything we can to reduce emissions in town. Replacing the old parking lot with new paving and adding up to 50 additional spaces for cars to accommodate seniors, who do not occupy the building all day, does not seem necessary. Activities are scheduled throughout the day so people come and go on staggered schedules. Moreover, holding COA activities at Bemis Hall, Pierce House, the school, and other town sites will minimize the need for parking at the Hartwell campus.

I urge everyone to get involved and take a close look at the CCBC website to understand the site plans, especially the substantial proposed increase of parking spaces. And, if you have nothing better to do, go take a walk in the late afternoon behind the pods to understand what will be lost and would need to change with each of the proposed plans. The next CCBC meeting is Wednesday, May 31 and will feature more detail on programming, especially attendance numbers, and the site plans.

“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.

My Turn: CCBC has reduced space but questions remain about cost

By Lynne Smith

At its May 17 meeting, CCBC and ICON Architecture claimed they reduced the space needed for a new building by 8,000 square feet compared to the space proposed in 2018 by Maryann Thompson Architects. ICON’s Ned Collier said the current program is “going in the direction of 75%” of the 2022 cost option of $25 million. They will “reduce programming for a 50% option” and also provide a 100% option at the June 13 meeting before the summer hiatus.   

In my opinion, and based on those expressed in the CCBC survey results, the upper amounts are unlikely to win approval at any Town Meeting and are surely a waste of time for the committee and the architects. A 50% option for a new building would cost $12.5 million and that may be more than most will want.

Also at the May 17 meeting, ICON presented a chart showing 6,700 square feet of space to be shared among COA/HS, PRD, LEAP (the after-school program), and Magic Garden (the pre-school program). While the chart showed many activities for an average week, there was a great deal of space that was not accounted for — shown as FT (Free Time) on the chart — and other blocks of time that were inexplicable, such as the five hours in the kitchen spent for Meals on Wheels. The chart also indicated the maximum number each room would hold, not the number who actually have attended. I was not convinced of the need for this much space, much less the additional unshared space required for administration, LEAP, support and maintenance, which totals around 11,000 square feet. I assume the shared-space chart and the description of unshared space will soon be available on the CCBC website.

Many participants suggested using existing town spaces for programming. Dan Pereira explained that CCBC was not considering using any buildings that were not town-owned. This surprised many of us who are aware that Lincoln and other towns happily use churches and schools for senior and youth programming, and some suggested that leasing privately owned buildings could work very well. As one of the amenders of the 2022 vote, I was surprised to learn that “only town-owned buildings” were being considered.

The April CCBC survey results, including free-form comments, are now available on the CCBC website. These comments reveal much about the mood of the town: questions about the need for a community center and the location, but primarily questions about cost. I asked that the CCBC respond to these comments at the upcoming public forums. If they do not, I fear many residents will simply tune out and vote against any expenditure.

On Tuesday, May 23, CCBC will hold another public forum at 7 p.m. in the Hartwell multipurpose room and on Zoom. ICON will show visuals of the spaces required, not just charts. I urge everyone to attend to learn about this project in time to affect the outcome. We need to make our voices heard about the cost and value of a community center.

“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.

May 23 community center forum on site planning, cost implications

The Community Center Building Committee (CCBC) will hold its next public forum on Tuesday, May 23 at 7 p.m. in the Hartwell multipurpose room to go over site development issues and their cost implications. Click here for the Zoom link.

Based on information from ICON Architects that was shared at the April 25 forum, the 75% cost option would be “acceptable [and] replicates what we have now” in terms of programming space, Town Administrator Tim Higgins said at the May 8 Select Board meeting. The 50% option will mean less money to spend on site development, meaning that there will be tradeoffs to evaluate in terms of things like the building’s distance from wetlands and neighbors, the amount of green space that can be preserved, the need to relocate parking, the site regrading required, etc. Shrinking certain spaces or eliminating some programs may be necessary to meet the 50% option cost.

ICON is developing design options at 50%, 75%, and 100% of the latest cost estimate of $26 million as directed by residents in November 2022. The 75% and 50% options would amount to $19.5 million and $13 million, respectively.

If some activities now slated for the community center are instead kept in their current locations to reduce building costs, “the 50% option better do a good job of doing that,” board member Jim Hutchinson said. The architects are “not putting that out there only because [they’re] required to provide it; they want it to be a feasible option.”

Even if there were no new construction, it will cost about $2 million for each of the three Hartwell pods to “bring them up to code and put them in suitable condition for [long-term] use,” Higgins said. One cost-saving possibility might be simply updating and linking two of the pods and adding a connector between them, he added.

Over summer, the architects will refine the three options and present them on September 30 at a hybrid charette/State of the Town Meeting. A Special Town Meeting to select a preferred option will be held in November or early December.

Last week, the CCBC noted on its website that ICON, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Council on Aging and Human Services “have made significant progress in scaling down the building program to include only proven program needs. The original 2018 project, which included both program needs and wants, was approximately 23,000 sq ft (plus another 7,000 sq ft of renovated space for LEAP and the school maintenance program). To date, we’ve scaled the building program down to just under 17,000 sq ft, and continue to look for more efficiencies. This will form the basis of the needs program, and is shaping up to become our 75% option (still including the other 7,000 sq ft of renovated space for LEAP and school maintenance program). From there, we can work our way down to a 50% option and back up to a higher-end option.”

My Turn: CCBC previews space needs at April 25 forum

By Lynne Smith

The Community Center Building Committee (CCBC), with the help of ICON Architecture, is hitting its stride. I was glad to see a draft of space needs for a new building but disappointed by the size and number of rooms being considered.

ICON project manager Mark McKivitz emphasized that the draft was preliminary and will be fleshed out in the next two weeks, but the 18,000 square feet for the Parks & Recreation Department and the Council on Aging & Human Services plus 5,000 square feet for the LEAP after-school program is a huge starting point — 23,000 square feet of new space! The architects said they think a two-story building will be required and much site development will be needed.

The volunteers and the architects are working hard and I appreciate this effort. However, they all seem convinced that a totally new building is the way to go. I am still not convinced. Given today’s high interest rates, inflation-affected construction costs, and the resulting impact on taxes, I still hope for a more creative solution involving renovation of current spaces and the use of the many acceptable spaces in town. At minimum, we must see a 50% option for a new building, not just a 75% option.

CCBC is truly committed to getting the community involved and has scheduled public forums on May 23 and June 13. Their communications have ramped up on LincolnTalk and those who are on the CCBC mailing list are receiving updates regularly.

The town must do something about the need for improved space for PRD and for COA&HS, and the CCBC wants the community to participate now rather than wait until the vote at the Special Town Meeting in November. I urge everyone in town to sign up on the CCBC mailing list and attend the upcoming forums [editor’s note: the next one is on Tuesday, May 23]. Information is on the CCBC website at LincolnCommunityCenter.com.

“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.

My Turn: Why the community center must be at Hartwell

By Krystal Wood

While the motion approved at the November 2022 Special Town Meeting recognized that the community center would be located at the Hartwell complex, in the recent CCBC survey responses and during the open microphone community center meeting on April 4, some residents expressed their continuing interest in locating the center at Lincoln Station, or in the consideration of other locations around town. There are a number of issues that are worth more explanation.

The Lincoln Station location
  1. The Parks and Recreation (PRD) programs are located at existing space at the Hartwell complex and will continue to be located at Hartwell so Lincoln children can easily walk to their after-school activities.
  2. There is no viable site at Lincoln Station for a Council on Aging & Human Services (COA&HS) center. No private land owner has talked to the town about siting a center on their property. The town owns three properties: the DPW site, the paved commuter parking lot, and the unpaved commuter parking lot. Consultants in a previous study estimated the cost for moving the DPW to the only viable site (transfer station) to be about $25 million. The unpaved commuter lot is too small. The paved commuter lot provides public parking for the commuter rail, and presents challenges complying with MBTA requirements for appropriate parking capacity at train stations. Limited parking correlates with reduced train service. The MBTA and its constituency can be expected to protest a reduction in public parking at any MBTA station. Building on the paved lot would also eliminate the possibility of using the lot for potential commercial activity or a potential housing development. (Additional housing is the top priority for the revitalization efforts.)
  3. Any construction for a center at Lincoln Station will require public funding for site preparation, parking, and a building in addition to public funding for solving PRD’s facility and office space needs in Hartwell complex.
  4. Locating the COA&HS center at Lincoln Station would require duplication of facilities with those used by PRD in the Hartwell complex, adding significantly to the construction costs and also the maintenance and management costs. 
  5. Trying to use other locations at Lincoln Station — above the bank, above Donelan’s, other Rural Land Foundation property etc., if available — would also reduce the options for future housing.
Important considerations for locating the community center at Hartwell:
  1. The PRD and COA&HS can co-locate as they need similar types of facilities and, most importantly, can share the same spaces. Both provide fitness activities, but largely at different times of the day. PRD and COA&HS provide arts-and-crafts activities that can again be located in the same space at different days and times, etc. Use of the same facilities will provide significant reduction in construction costs and provide operational efficiency gains.
  2. There are synergies between the school, PRD, and COA&HS programs, and the Hartwell location will provide readily accessible opportunities for intergenerational activities unhindered by distance and transportation logistics of separate locations.
  3. The campus has been studied extensively to ensure that a community center could be located on Ballfield Road, and it was determined that with proper design, there is sufficient space for parking and circulation.
  4. The campus location is aesthetically more pleasing than the commuter lot at Lincoln Station.
PRD and COA&HS programming beyond the Hartwell complex

Currently, PRD and COA&HS programs occur at many locations around town other than the Hartwell complex, and both organizations will continue to use these locations. For a full listing, please see the Decentralized Programming Matrix on the CCBC web site.

  1. The PRD runs programs at the Lincoln School’s Reed and Smith gyms, Donaldson Auditorium, and Learning Commons, and at Bemis Hall, Pierce House, the library, the First Parish Church, and Codman Community Farms, amongst other locations, as well as at town athletic facilities including Codman Pool, the sport and tennis courts, playgrounds, athletic fields, and parks.
  2. The COA&HS has programs at the First Parish Church, Lincoln Woods, the Hartwell complex, the Pierce House tent, The Commons in Lincoln, the Ryan Estates, Minuteman Technical High School, and on Lincoln’s trail network.

There is a recognized need to revitalize Lincoln Station, but at the 2022 November Special Town Meeting, the democratic process resulted in a clear consensus and support for the amended motion for developing options for design choices and budgets for the community center building at the Hartwell complex.

Thank you for taking the time to read through these clarifications, and for engaging in the process to discern how we address Lincoln’s challenges together.

Krystal Wood is a member of the Community Center Building Committee‘s Communications Subcommittee.

“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.

Community center architects zero in on space needs

At an April 25 forum, ICON Architecture presented some preliminary figures for how much space would be required in a community center to accommodate the current needs of its two primary users. Based on those numbers, Principal Architect Ned Collier said they were “heading in the direction” of the 75% price option.

ICON is working on its charge from the town to develop design options at 50%, 75%, and 100% of the $26 million cost estimate from November 2022 based on a pair of 2018 design concepts by Maryann Thomson Architects (the square footages could not be immediately ascertained). Collier said a 100% option “might reflect more desires of the community vs. basic needs” and didn’t have an immediate answer for what a 50% option would look like in terms of capacity.

ICON estimates that the Parks & Recreation Department (PRD), the Council on Aging & Human Services, and LEAP will need about 18,000 gross square feet of space (the usable program spaces plus corridors, bathrooms, stairs, etc.). LEAP would require another 5,000 square feet in either new construction or in a renovated pod. The total gross square footage comes to 25,000 square feet, which would meet the current needs but does not account for future growth in programs and usage.

The current space used by the COA&HS is inadequate in both size and quality, but their initial square footage estimates have been “pared down” during ICON’s work this far, Collier said. As for the PRD, “the issue is the state of the building they’re in, not necessarily that they’re woefully short on space for program needs,” he said. “This is quantifying pretty much what they have now.”

In the coming weeks and over the summer, ICON will begin to formulate cost estimates for residents to consider at a Special Town Meeting in November 2023. “The team will need guidance on tradeoffs” based on residents’ priorities, said Community Center Building Committee member Tim Christenfeld. Some of those priorities, such as energy efficiency, were revealed in the 593 answers from a recent survey. The CCBC presented demographic and quantitative results from the survey’s nine ranked questions, but there were also 400 comments that the group promised to summarize and post on its website.

Residents asked a number of questions, including how many people use the spaces now, and what other spaces in town can be used for programs, including the basement of Bemis Hall, which was renovated in 2016 as a temporary measure to give the COA (now the COA&HS) more space. COA&HS Director Abby Butt noted that “the basement has terrible air quality” and the handicapped bathrooms on that floor “are about as far from the entrance as you can possibly hope to get.”

At the next CCBC public forum in May, architects will report on their analysis of the Hartwell campus site, including traffic circulation issues.