The following districts presented on the progress of their proposed projects at the January 13, 2021 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 an overview of the options studied during the Feasibility Study and the District’s preferred solution to replace the existing William E. Carter School with a new facility on the existing site. The FAS, MSBA staff, and the District discussed: 1) appreciation for the updated educational plan and quick turnaround with responses to questions raised during the November 18, 2020 informational FAS meeting; 2) the engaging and collaborative process undertaken in this project; 3) preliminary evacuation plans; 4) potential uses of the therapy pool and differentiated gym space; 5) opportunities to review the proposed project with Boston’s Disabilities Commission; 6) building orientation; 7) how the large circular corridor on the second floor supports mobility training; and, 8) the flexibility of the building design once occupied.
MSBA staff is currently working with the District to reach a mutually agreeable solution to recommend to the MSBA’s Board of Directors.
Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational Technical School District
Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational High School
Current Phase: Feasibility Study
Owner’s Project Manager: PMA Consultants, LLC
Designer: Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc.
The Northeast Metro Regional School District (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 Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocational High School with a new facility on the existing site. The FAS, MSBA staff, and the District discussed: 1) the location of the new school building in relation to the site and its consideration for traffic; 2) parking locations, green space, and proximity to the Breakheart Reservation; 3) appreciation for the distribution of Special Education spaces; 4) further refinement of the roadways on the site plan; 5) appreciation for the Educational Program; 6) appreciation for the District’s consideration of non-AP elective alternatives; 7) OSHA standards in the shop classrooms; 8) consideration to further professional development of staff; 9) use of the gymnasium and its associated curriculum/schedule; 10) consideration for site drainage; and, 11) location of the Pre-K playground and its proximity to the auto shop storage yard.
The FAS requested additional information regarding: 1) parking locations, green space, and proximity to Breakheart Reservation; 2) use of the gymnasium and its associated curriculum/schedule; 3) consideration for site drainage; and, 4) location of the Pre-K playground and its proximity to the auto shop storage yard.
MSBA staff are currently working with the District to reach a mutually agreeable solution to recommend to the MSBA’s Board of Directors.
Town of Watertown
Watertown High School
Current Phase: Feasibility Study
Owner’s Project Manager: Compass Project Management, Inc.
Designer: Ai3 Architects LLC
The Town of Watertown (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 Watertown High School on the existing high school and Philips Administration Building sites. The FAS, MSBA staff, and the District discussed: 1) the challenging nature and complexity of the project; 2) the District’s proposal for two buildings on two sites connected by a pedestrian bridge; 3) the design intent and clarification of a campus vs. non-campus approach; 4) the proposed massing and opportunities for simplification; 5) low building utilization; 6) incorporating universal design including accessible entrances to both buildings; 7) a day in the life of a student and how they would travel through the buildings on a typical school day; 8) the proposed layout and whether it meets the needs of the District's educational program; 9) the District's desire to include public spaces and parking, and what the removal of those spaces could mean for improving the design of the school; 10) options that maximize school building program on the existing site; 11) the potential impact of ineligible spaces on the MSBA's grant; 12) local financing and community support; and, 13) cost of the proposed project and the calculated impact to taxpayers.
The FAS requested additional information regarding the District’s project schedule.
MSBA staff are currently working with the District to reach a mutually agreeable solution.
