The following districts presented on the progress of their proposed projects at the November 18, 2020 Massachusetts School Building Authority (the “MSBA”) Facilities Assessment Subcommittee (the “FAS”) Meeting:
City of Boston
William E. Carter School
Current Phase: Feasibility Study
Owner’s Project Manager: Hill International Company
Designer: Perkins + Will
The City of Boston (the “District”), the Owner’s Project Manager, and design team presented their preliminary designs for the Carter School. The FAS, MSBA staff, and the District discussed: 1) appreciation for developing age-appropriate spaces; 2) the size of the proposed therapy pool; 3) layout of toilet rooms; 4) design and spatial considerations for students with visual and hearing impairments; 5) options for outdoor spaces and how each fits with the overall flow of the building; and, 6) evacuation plans.
The FAS requested that additional information regarding evacuation plans be included in the District’s next submission to the MSBA.
MSBA staff look forward to the District’s Preferred Schematic Report ahead of a February 2021 MSBA Board of Director’s meeting.
City of Lawrence
Francis M. Leahy Elementary School
Current Phase: Feasibility Study
Owner’s Project Manager: Atlantic Construction and Management, Inc.
Designer: Mount Vernon Group Architects, Inc.
The City of Lawrence (the “District”), the Owner’s Project Manager, and design team presented an overview of the options studied during the Feasibility Study and the District’s preferred solution to replace the existing Francis M. Leahy Elementary School with a new facility serving students in grades K-8 on the existing site. The FAS, MSBA staff, and the District discussed: 1) appreciation of work associated with community outreach and the Educational Program; 2) the thoughtful approach to outdoor play space; 3) further consideration of the distribution of Special Education spaces; 4) the number of sinks in the elementary grade classrooms to support project based learning; 5) consideration for involving maintenance staff in rooftop and courtyard planning and design; 6) the building’s effective separation of the lower and upper grades; 7) building access and egress; 8) variations to the MSBA’s Space Summary guidelines; 9) opportunity for further consideration of the entryway design; 10) square footage comparison to another MSBA project on a tight urban site; and, 11) appreciation for the incorporation of daylighting and the overall architectural plan.
MSBA staff are currently working with the District to reach a mutually agreeable solution to recommend to the MSBA’s Board of Directors.