The Lincoln Squirrel

News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

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.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Comments by Ken Bassett focused on site design/parking/circulation issues.

    While Community Center scheme #1 has the advantage of placing the building focused on a newly created central green, the resulting configuration of parking raises serious questions of feasibility and practicality:
    –the primary roadway and related parking serving Smith and the CC ends up being a somewhat torturous and challenged layout that will involve serious grading, retaining walls, and close proximity to the existing Smith facade. Parking likewise presses against the Bedford Road frontage as well as neighbor’s property calling potentially for screening and serious grading to achieve the layout.
    –parking as a resource is split between Smith and the CC, creating real limits for shared parking when events call for overflow capacity. Walking between the lots, particularly in the evening, would not be convenient.
    –drop-off for Smith as we know it is eliminated and relocated to a position on the other/south side of the building and intertwined with a relatively complex layout of parking. Drop-off for the CC is “left handed”. Access and parking for the pods are eliminated with the exception of a dead-end service drive.

    CC schemes #2 and 3a, from a site design perspective, address the practical aspect of entry, drop-off, and parking for most facilities in the Smith quadrant. Overflow parking from a large event can be reasonably accommodated by the integrated parking layout and drop-off for Smith and The CC are straight forward and easily navigated except for the fact that a reverse movement at the Smith drop-off is not provided.

    Scheme 3b suffers from the same issue as Scheme 1; that is, the split of parking resources into two disconnected areas limits flexibility. In this case the 3b is almost more problematic than Scheme 1 in that the Smith building “hides” the one parking area on the south side and probably causes patrons to first choose the existing lot then do a torturous return to access the lot to the south of Smith.

    Scheme 4a is similar to #2 and #3a with its consolidated parking in a central location. The detailed layout makes the parking area look somewhat larger but in fact would be the less confusing of all other layouts and would accommodate the ebb and flow of parking demands from various activities.

    Scheme 4b feels like parking has overtaken the quadrant to some extent by keeping the existing lot and adding a new lot to the east of the pod which directly serves the new CC location. Recirculation in this scheme would not be overly complex and sharing of parking resources for large activities in either the CC or Smith would work reasonably well.

    Ken Bassett January 29/2018

  2. If option B-6 is selected for the school, is there a Community Center solution to be considered around the Smith Gym and areas of Smith School the option would demolish?

Trackbacks