community center*

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.

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.

By Lynne Smith

At the CCBC regular meeting on April 12, Mark McKevitz, ICON Architecture project manager, listed the topics raised at the April 4 community forum. The list was daunting and it was good to know that residents’ concerns were heard. I congratulate the CCBC for announcing that more community forums will occur in April, May, and June. This is a brave move in our famously opinionated town! While misunderstandings sometimes arise, the forums create an opportunity for our voices to be heard on this important topic — one that will affect our community and our tax bill for years to come.

Ned Collier, ICON lead architect, said they would release the results of the recent CCBC survey at the April 25 community meeting. CCBC Chair Sarah Chester said they would also provide the programming matrix many of us have been asking for — specifically, I am interested in a list of programs that must be housed in a community center and cannot be housed in existing spaces. (Editor’s note: The CCBC website includes a Draft Programming Matrix listing space wants and needs for various uses, as well as a Decentralized Programming Matrix showing where various programs are currently held.)

Hartwell campus — At the April 12 meeting, Collier spent over an hour describing the Hartwell campus space using mapping overlays to show the perennial stream, gradations of land, impermeable paving, traffic patterns, and the footprint of the existing buildings, (the pods). ICON will refine this preliminary analysis in the next two months in order to generate cost estimates of site preparation for a new or renovated building.

The pods are heavily used for after-school programs and adult fitness classes. These Parks & Recreation Department programs will need to continue at Hartwell. The challenge is how to include the Council on Aging & Human Services into the space. It seems clear that a new or renovated building is needed. What is not clear is how big a structure is required and how the increased traffic flow and complexity will be resolved. A serious traffic analysis is needed to accommodate seniors and children arriving at similar times.

Use of existing spaces — Many residents do not want to duplicate existing spaces with brand-new ones. It is my understanding that ICON has already reviewed the Hartwell Pods and Bemis Hall for their suitability for COA&HS and PRD programs. ICON will soon visit the Pierce House, and resident Dennis Picker suggested that the Lincoln Public Library be visited. I did not hear that there were any plans for visiting space at Lincoln Station.

As ICON reviews existing spaces, I fear they are looking for problems but I hope they will also look for solutions. The architects should be able to provide insight into how difficult or costly solutions might be. For example, if the Pierce House could be used during the winter months to host indoor COA activities, what would it take to make the area suitable for these activities? Similarly, if Bemis Hall were used for art classes on the main floor and dance and music on the second floor, what modifications would be needed?

April 25 community forum — I urge everyone to attend this upcoming meeting and hope CCBC will issue the programming matrix in advance. I believe the committee is trying to address our concerns. Now is the time to ask questions and voice opinions.

• Click here to see previous Lincoln Squirrel posts about 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.

At the first “open mic night” held by the Community Center Building Committee, comments ran the gamut from reluctance about building one at all to suggestions for a garden, cafe, piano, and room for repairing appliances.

Also on April 4, the CCBC launched an online survey asking residents about what they think a community center should be. The committee and architects stressed that this type of feedback will be crucial in shaping concepts. The deadline to complete the survey is April 21.

ICON Architecture has been working since early March to gather information on the Hartwell campus site and will present those “objective findings” on April 25, said Principal Architect Ned Collier. There will also be public forums about once a month, said CCBC Chair Sarah Chester.

“We need a public discussion about wants vs. needs. That has yet to occur in the 11-year history of this project,” said Dennis Picker. Collier responded that his team has emphasized that point when talking to stakeholders (primarily the Council on Aging & Human Services and the Parks and Recreation Department), and the survey “will help us identify if there are community-wide wants and needs that aren’t being met.”

Some of the roughly 100 residents who attended online and in person were not sold on the whole idea. “I’m not sure I even understand what you mean by ‘community center,’ said Peter Braun, saying the town’s existing spaces such as the refurbished school and the Pierce House are sufficient. 

Lynne Smith agreed, saying, “I want Lincoln to invest in our existing buildings and make sure they’re part of our lives for decades to come” and look more closely at existing spaces “before totally sinking time into a new building.”

Several residents, while agreeing on the need for a community center, suggested that it be located in the South Lincoln commercial area, even though previous studies and the 2022 Special Town Meeting vote specified the Hartwell pod area as the chosen site.

The town’s 2009 Comprehensive Long-Range Plan calls for a compact, vital, walkable area in the village center to encourage social interaction, “but the Planning Board has not been involved in this [community center] process,” said Ken Hurd. As outlined in the state’s Housing Choice Act, South Lincoln will most likely be rezoned to allow denser housing and for mixed-use development — another reason why it would be the best site for a community center, he added.

But Ruth Ann Hendrickson pushed back, saying that revitalizing South Lincoln “is a terrific idea and many of us are hoping for that, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon… To hold off on building a community center until this difficult problem is solved is just not helpful today. We need to concentrate on what the needs are right now.”

The Hartwell location is best for children who attend LEAP and after-school Parks & Rec programming, and walking to South Lincoln is not a viable option for them, several residents noted. Ultimately, “you’re going to have a hard time locating it in a place where everyone can walk to,” Craig Donaldson observed.

Chester and Collier reiterated that any location other than Hartwell was not up for discussion. “Short of reopening past decisions, [the survey] would help us to understand what it is that we could do with you in this location that would really fly for Lincoln,” Collier said.

Many of those who spoke said they hoped the community center would be a place where people of all ages could gather and socialize informally, work remotely, play ping-pong, etc. “The town would benefit from a space that isn’t bound by specific programming [that’s] open and welcoming; maybe it doesn’t matter if there is an event scheduled and it’s possible to just drop by,” said Lis Herbert. A working kitchen or at least a cafe would be useful for everyone in that regard, several said.

Planners should also find a way to consult with children and teenagers as to what they would like in a community center, said Alice deNormandie — “I think they might have some interesting ideas.”

ICON will present some preliminary cost figures for various options at the Hartwell site at a CCBC meeting in June. 

By Lynne Smith

(Editor’s note: writer Lynne Smith indicates her personal opinions in italics.)

The March 22 evening meeting of the Community Center Building Committee was disappointing for public attendees, many of whom hoped to hear detail on programming needs, alternate spaces, and a process for soliciting community opinion. About 30 Lincoln residents attended the meeting virtually and in person and were paying close attention. Committee Chair Sarah Chester started the meeting at 7 p.m. and opened it for public comments around 8 p.m.

The topics covered include the following.

1. Timeline — The committee intends to have ICON, the architectural firm, design several options by June, spend the summer refining costs, and then do further review and refinement prior to a vote for a preferred choice at a fall 2023 Special Town Meeting. Apparently, much work has been happening behind the scenes. Now that the public is engaged, the committee needs to issue updates at the beginning of each meeting. It is late March and the timing seems tight for bringing the town into the discussion.

2. Community survey and forum — The committee has not prepared a survey but hopes to create, conduct, analyze, and get the results back in time for a community forum on April 25. As Alison Taunton-Rigby of the Communications Subcommittee pointed out, these steps take about one month. During the meeting, the committee brainstormed whom to survey and what sorts of things would be included: Lincoln values, programming wishes, open-ended comments, raw feelings.

The subcommittee agreed to draft the survey at a public meeting on Wednesday, March 29 and mentioned that several other surveys would be conducted this spring, although no specifics were pinned down. There was little discussion of what the community forum would include other than a report by ICON and the survey results. When the meeting opened up to the public, attendees requested that the survey and the forum be used to give the community an opportunity to comment. This suddenly seemed to remind the committee that residents had opinions that should be solicited, both in survey form and in public meetings. To be meaningful, a survey needs thoughtful content and a large sample and a forum needs to attract a large audience. Both take time.

3. “Stakeholders” and “open mic” night — The CCBC frequently used the term “stakeholders,” meaning COA&HS, Parks and Recreation Department (PRD), the School Committee, and liaisons from the Historical and Conservation Commissions. During public discussion, a consensus was reached that town organizations — such as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Lincoln Family Association — and ordinary citizens are also stakeholders. Consequently, the committee decided to give representatives from 20-30 town organizations and members of the public the opportunity to speak for two minutes or submit a written brief at the CCBC’s April 4 meeting. Assistant Town Administrator Dan Pereira offered to invite these representatives and post the invitation for the public. It appears that the committee will begin soliciting public outreach in April — tight timing as it is already late March.

4. Programming needs and alternate spaces — The committee presented no analysis of programming needs. At the prior meeting on March 8, [Select Board member] Jonathan Dwyer and [Town Administrator] Tim Higgins reassured some of us that the committee would explore “existing available spaces” for programs, and the committee agreed that an inventory of potential available spaces would aid the architect. At this meeting, however, no mention was made of this until the public discussion. ICON architect Ned Collier said that Chester graciously gave him a “driving tour” of the school and other buildings around town. That sounds insufficient to the expressed desire of many people in town to see a full evaluation of these spaces and how they might be used to flesh out the program needs. It is time for the committee to share a programing analysis with the town as well as with the architect.

*   *   *

I believe a community center is more than a building — it is a coordinated set of activities and places for residents, both young and old. I want to see an analysis of programming needs and an inventory of available spaces that might serve those needs. I would vote for investment in a modest new building on the Hartwell site. I would also vote for an additional sum allocated to improvements/modifications to make existing spaces in Bemis Hall, Pierce House, and the Hartwell Pods more suitable for programs.

The CCBC and town staff may be hard at work on the community center, but this work needs to be more transparent to the town. Public meeting dates need to be announced broadly. I am on the CCBC mailing list but have yet to receive information about scheduled meetings. I urge residents to respond to the survey and attend the April 4 and April 25 meetings, when these opportunities are announced. I urge the committee to seek broad public input from the town prior to the vote next fall.

“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.

Residents will have several opportunities in the coming months to offer input on discussions about the design and cost of a potential community center starting in April, when they will be asked to prioritize programs in the building and distinguish “essential” from “desired.”

The Community Center Building Committee has created a new website, lincolncommunitycenter.com, with progress reports, FAQs on the site’s Outreach page, and a document on lessons learned from other communities pertaining to the design of a community center in the post-Covid era.

Earlier this month, the CCBC and Select Board chose ICON Architecture to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates with options not to exceed 75% and 50% of the $25 million estimate floated in November 2022. Their work will begin by studying the cost implications of site work and programming options. They will share initial thoughts about building siting and conceptual design choices in May, when the CCBC and the community will consider how best to align to the budget targets, according to the CCBS schedule posted on March 17. Residents will vote on a preferred option and budget at a Special Town Meeting in November.

By Lynne Smith

(Editor’s note: Lynne Smith hopes to go to the Community Center Building Committee meetings through June and write a My Turn piece each time. To see details of upcoming meetings, see the CCBC web page.)

At the March 8 meeting of the Community Center Building Committee evening meeting, Sarah Chester, Chair of CCBC, introduced two representatives of ICON Architecture, the firm selected “to assist the CCBC 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,” as mandated in the measure approved at a Special Town Meeting on November 30, 2022.

The architects described what they plan to accomplish by the fall 2023 Special Town Meeting with the $325,000 allocated for their services. They emphasized they would focus on a “base plan” with a cost basis that would be common across all three options: 50%, 75%, and 100% of the prior cost estimate of $25 million. They mentioned Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and said they would identify “needs” versus “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 in” to all options. They said all the right things!

Those attending on line and in the room raised two big concerns:

First: Existing available town spaces. Many residents, including me, want to see “existing available town space” used for COA&HS and Parks & Recreation programs. This was not mentioned until the CCBC opened the meeting to the public. Town Administrator Tim Higgins and Select Board member Jonathan Dwyer reassured some of us that the use of alternate spaces would be explored. Personally, I am hopeful that all our treasured buildings — Bemis Hall, the Pierce House, the Lincoln Library, Codman Barn, town offices — will be maintained and in active use. Few towns of our size have such a rich resource of beautiful historic buildings. However, if they are not actively used for municipal purposes, then I fear that deferred maintenance will lead to their collapse.

Second: Public outreach and programming needs. The architects have been given a June deadline for presenting a framework for three options. They would then spend the summer working on details and cost estimates in time for the fall meeting vote. It is crucial that the committee provide clear opportunities for public input to help shape those options as they are being developed this spring. It was not at all clear at last night’s meeting if and how this would happen.

A public outreach plan has not yet been created and all work defining the perceived needs has been conducted in private meetings between stakeholders.

Perceived needs from the last design seem like a starting point for current deliberation, but no concrete data has been made available. Instead, we have been given anecdotes. For example, senior dining (lunch on Fridays) and potential cooking classes are used to justify the need for a new kitchen when there are multiple kitchens and dining areas around town that could accommodate these programs. Nor is the uneven pavement and inclement weather under Pierce House tent a good reason to build a new exercise center when nearby towns offer luxurious new gyms which residents could access with vouchers. As for parking at Bemis, all spaces in front could be made handicapped-accessible during large events. If folks can’t walk across the street safely, perhaps they need more than municipal services can provide.

Although Sarah Chester announced that CCBC meetings would be held publicly every other Wednesday from now until June, it is not clear that these meetings will include public discussion. Public outreach should be more than marketing the plans that have been developed in private meetings.

I am 78 years old, have lived in Lincoln for 20 years, and have fallen in love with its scattered historic buildings, wooded trails, and minimal commercial spaces. I want to continue to explore all aspects of the town and run into various folks as I do so. I have no desire to always go to one brand-new building for everything! I hope that CCBC takes seriously the need to find out what town residents, not just the stakeholders (COA/HS and P&R) want for our future.

“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.