The Globe’s Deirdre Fernandes recaps last week’s alderman hearing about Mayor Setti Warren’s request for $143.5 million in tax increases — including $8.4 million for road repairs, four police officers, more teachers and renovations of the Newton Centre Fire Headquarters and Zervas School and about $3 million for two debt exclusion overrides to pay for rebuilding the Angier and Cabot schools.
While no one in the article disputes the need for more revenue, there’s this…
[Alderman Ted] Hess-Mahan suggested that the city wait on the overrides for the schools until it has more detailed cost estimates. Architects for Angier Elementary will be presenting estimates in the coming months, but the Cabot and Zervas school projects are still in the early planning stages.
Is Alderman Hess-Mahan right?
There are different ways to estimate and fund a project, 2 that I know of may be relevant –
1) The military uses form “1391” to get funding from congress before any planning is done at all. This is based on historical cost per SF of past facilities of that type, and the size of the proposed facility.
2) Within some large owners (hospitals, universities), an initial cost is proposed – again based on historical cost per SF for that type of facility (dorm, surgical suite, etc.) – and then an amount to develop the design (usually to the schematic design stage) – is authorized. After SD is done, an initial cost estimate (not much better than $/SF and vaidated against $/Sf costs). This is held until design development, or even construction documents, are complete – at which point a fully detailed estimate is available. The downside of this is that design usually runs 10% of the project cost, so waiting until this point to estimate the project can be very costly.
In what’s in line with my experience; see this report (http://www.peterli.com/spm/pdfs/SPM-Construction-Report.pdf); especially table 5. Assuming that Newton is going to be somewhere between average and high quartile the cost per SF would be $185 to $235 – so there’s about a 25% range out of the blocks.
Angier has about 400 students. Let’s be generous, and assume we’ll add 20% for future growth (480 students); and allocate 150 SF/student, fora total of 72,000 SF. That would run between $13.3M and $16.9M.
$100K for demo ($2/SF x 50,000 sf),
Remediation (low) $150K for asbestos remediation ($3/SF x 50,000 SF), nothing for PCBs because most of the construction/reno was not done in the 60s/70s, nothing for lead because it can (sometimes) be left in place for whole-building disposal)
Remediation (high) – $500K for asbestos ($10/sf); $750: for PCBs ($15/SF); $500K for lead ($10/SF) for a total of $1.75 M
So thats a total cost of $13.5M to $18.75M – plus financing. I can see wanting more certainty; but by complying with the Massachusetts building standards (a better range of cost/SF given conditions in Mass) and having a comprehensive hazard survey, I don’t see the point of waiting for the full design.
Thanks, Anne.
In other blogs, I was critical of Setti Warren’s estimates for the three schools in question, especially the $40 million for Zervas for only some renovation and addition for a school that is currently holding somewhat over 300 students. I showed two schools I had found, Hingham and Burlington elementary schools, that were considerably below the estimates that will form the basis for the debt exclusion over-rides and the Zervas school portion of the general over-ride.
People in Newton, especially on some of these blogs in the local Democratic party who idolize Setti, don’t want to hear the truth. What Setti is proposing, admittedly at an early stage, is more astounding than what David Cohen did with NNHS. He’s expecting us to buy into what is from the onset a group of gold-plated schools, in spite of all our other infrastructure needs. Cohen sort of jacked us up as time passed, and perhaps he was just too inept to stop the escalation in cost.
Barry,
Have you been in Angier? Have you spent 180 days there learning or working. How about Cabot? These buildings should have been redone YEARS ago. Building schools is expensive. The current Angier has too few bathrooms, no elevator (even though there are children who require wheelchairs or walkers), not enough plugs, the classrooms are small, not enough special education space, etc. I can go on and on.
While I don’t want to pay more in taxes, I realize that this school is not only outdated, but has outlived its days. This school does not comply with today’s standards. Not even close.
I am nervous that the Carr School renovation is already having budget exploding, but for too long the City of Newton has neglected its buildings, including the school buildings. We have “saved” tax payer dollars by not taking care of the buildings. I can’t see how you can renovate Angier. You need to start over.
Maybe someone in the mayor’s office or the school committee can set up tours of these schools. I think the voters of Newton need to see the state of the school.
Newton Mom,
What are you talking about?? I said only that the cost estimates which are the basis for the over-rides are too high. I never said we shouldn’t build any new schools. Anne’s study above confirms that the estimates are way too high.
In this one case I’m with Barry. Yes, the schools in question, as well as other municipal facilities, have been neglected and need renovations and upgrades. I believe Setti Warren is proposing the projects and tax hikes in good faith. Still, after the atrocious nearly $200 million spent on Newton South by the past administration, I (and I think other Newton voters as well) would like to have a little more to go on than just trust … line items and cost estimates of proposed projects, to show we’re striking a more reasonable middle ground, would be a good idea.
Have you guys gone to community meetings? These are the issues that are taken up there.
A rough estimate of what we owe is $250,000,000…lets say the cost of inflation , construction, equipment costs go up a mere 4% per year that becomes $10,000,000 per year or $800,000 per month (or almost $30,000 per day). Get done what you can now, give conservative numbers and lets do it for cryin’ out loud. My prblem with the city is there isn’t enough URGENCY. Wake up and lets get behind the schools construction (we all know it will happen anyway) and lets do it now. Enough is enough.
Let me just finish my original thought: We hold out a month and our costs go up by $800,000. Months become years and in a year our cost increase by $10,000,000. Lets do it now.
I understand the need to understand the costs, and all. But the more we debate, and the more we delay, the higher the costs. There are so many ideas out there (various alderman shared different views online), it is time to get a few good ideas out there, and start compromising.
I think the art of compromise in government is gone. Everyone wants HIS/HER idea implemented, and no one gives and takes. Mayor Cohen shoved Newton North down the voters throats. He wasn’t for compromise. Setti, the Alderman and the School Committee need to talk it through and get the BEST idea out there, and implemented at a cost that we can all live with in the future.
I think estimates are needed, however we need real budgets. I just went through a home renovation, and worked with a company that knew and understood my budget, and lived with the budget. I had to live without some bells and whistles, but I love my completed project.
Barry, I thought of you as I read about the CARR SCHOOL renovations. It is in the benefit of the BIDDING company to bid LOW, and then show us it really needs more work than necessary. I am nervous that the CARR SCHOOL will be the first project and the last project. We need a company that can give us REAL costs, and not the lowerest cost in order to win the busienss.
Newton Mom,
If you didn’t see these figures that I posted in other blogs, here they are. I understand that cost per student isn’t the only measure, but it is for sure a kind of sanity check. First, Setti’s estimates in his Powerpoint slides :
According to the middle of the construction estimate range for each school, and the current enrollments, we will be paying, not counting finance costs:
Angier (409 students) $88,000 per student
Cabot (418 students) $111,000 per student
Zervas (325 students) $123,000 per student, for renovation, not teardown and rebuild
while we paid, for the building considered an extravagance, NNHS (1940 students), about $98,000 per student.
The elementary schools surely don’t have the special facilities that NNHS has.
And, now, two local new elementary schools that I found in a search:
Hingham East Elementary School, Hingham, MA
Total Area: 91,000 square feet
Total Cost: $25,656,000
for 611 students ($42,000 per student)
Burlington Memorial Elementary School, Burlington, MA
Total Area: 80,000 square feet
Total Cost: $16,742,506 ($33,500 per student)
for 500 students
I also don’t buy Tom’s inflation rates. But, there’s no need to delay if Setti would produce acceptable estimates. If we disagree, it’s not right to blame us for the delay. We shouldn’t approve an over-ride and give him carte blanche to repeat David Cohen’s misuse of our tax money.
A couple of things to keep in mind:
1) For Angier and Cabot, if the projects end up costing less, the tax levy will be less.
2) Newton’s CFO has presented what she considers to be conservative estimates, rather than risk underestimating.
3) The MSBA is closely monitoring all projects it’s funding to prevent waste and cost-spiraling.
4) Repeating what happened with the high school would be political suicide. Our Mayor is smarter than that.
I’ve forwarded Greg some tables from the CFO of comparable school projects to Newton’s proposed projects. Hopefully he can post them. Our schools are already bursting at the seams and the student population continues to grow. If we don’t move ahead with these projects, we’ll end up spending a lot more on short-term fixes with no long-term solutions in site.
Our past problems that have led to the miserable infrastructure problems we face now can be largely traced to lack of or poor planning. Do we really want to be critical of a solid effort to get ahead of the game on our planning for these and future projects?
To me it always makes sense to have a funding plan in the works for these types of projects. And the debt exclusion rules are designed to protect us from rapidly escalating costs that exceed projected cost by more than “X” %. And as Marcia commented, the MSBA is so much better prepared to manage these development projects that when NNHS was being implemented.
There is such a huge difference on the transparency scale with this administration, and not a minute too soon. Please let’s not do anything to punish that effort. I want even more, if that’s possible, not less.
Dan,
“Our past problems that have led to the miserable infrastructure problems we face now can be largely traced to lack of or poor planning. Do we really want to be critical of a solid effort to get ahead of the game on our planning for these and future projects?”
But now you’re willing to overlook poor planning. Since it appears that the estimates are too high, why don’t we ask the mayor to reduce the amount he asks for in the over-rides and perhaps people will be more receptive? If we give him the amounts now projected, we can expect that the budgets will go to those approved levels with the addition of some additional unnecessary features.
I’m not arguing against doing something about the poor infrastructure. I’m arguing against doing something in haste that we’ll regret and will interfere with other needed infrastructure improvements.
The thing that’s most disconcerting is Zervas as part of the general over-ride. It seems really over the top in cost, and has no controls and no time limits.
At the outset, I want to assure everyone that I agree we need to invest in these school projects, sidewalk and street repair and a fire stations/headquarters. I also agree that we need more revenue to pay for enrollment increases. (I also think we need to find more revenue to cover massive unfunded liabilities for OPEB.) Based on past experience, however, I am not yet persuaded that asking for a debt exclusion or override before we even have a site plan, let alone an agreed budget approved by MSBA, is the right thing to do.
While I am confident that the CFO used comparables that are, well, comparable, and built in various contingencies, I still have a nagging concern that this is exactly what the BOA heard when we were given the original cost estimates for a new North before we even had a site plan. I cannot recall exactly what those estimates were, but they were well under the $141 million we were told it would cost when we did have a site plan, and much, much, much less than the $191 million it ended up costing. Moreover, Lexington is now faced with the possibility of having to go back to voters after having a debt exclusion approved because the cost of dealing with hazardous materials and construction costs increased the price tag by over 9%. (The Estabrook school in Lexington is one of the “comparables” and Newton is also using the same designer.) As I told our CFO, the folks up in Lexington are not exactly country bumpkins, and the MSBA is involved with that project, too. In other words, “stuff happens.” Finally, by her own admission, the city does not want to ask for too much for each project; in other words, while trying to give a conservative estimate, the administration is also trying very hard to come as close to possible to the “right” number that will have the best chance of passing.
Also, part of the presentation was news to me, so I hope I heard it right. For instance, when I heard that the city wants to renovate Zervas while students as young as 5 are in the building, I was jolted back to ten years ago when Mayor Cohen announced that the project manager had advised him that Newton North could not be safely renovated with high school students and faculty in it. Once that is publicly announced, it is impossible to unring the bell. In addition, since the city also wants to do Zervas and Angier at the same time, what happens if it turns out we cannot renovate Zervas or that the feasibility study shows that building a new building comes out head and shoulders above renovating? How much more will that cost? Will the scope of the project be scaled back or will it be postponed for lack of sufficient funds? Where are we going to find the additional swing space and how much will that cost? Will Cabot be delayed, thereby increasing costs? I didn’t hear all of the answers to those questions the other night.
As I also pointed out, this administration has had recent experience with sizable cost increases with Day, the elementary school modulars, and now with the Carr School project. I sincerely meant it when I told the CFO and COO that I was not casting aspersions and that we are all on the same side. But it is also true that this is not my first rodeo with school projects, and I believe my concerns are well founded.
So, please forgive me, but yes I am concerned that the costs will go up between the time this goes to a vote and when the site plan is approved, let alone when we start to receive bids. Will I vote to put it on the ballot anyway? I don’t know. I still have this pit in my stomach. But I will listen and keep an open mind. Nevertheless, I think these concerns, and those expressed by some of my colleagues, are legitimate.
Some things I didn’t include in my original post (I figured I was perilously close to tl;dr as is)
Back-of-the-envelope calculations usually have about 2/3 of the cost of construction as labor. If you need to accelerate a project to get it done in a year + summer – say by working 10 hrs/day 6 days/week; 1/3 of your total hours are paying overtime (x1.5) for a total cost increase of about 11% – this would add another $1.4 to $1.9 M
The other issue is financing. You don’t pay $15M over 30 years for a $15M building (just like if you have a mortgage you don’t pay 700K for a 700K house). Angier is looking for an override of $1.3M/year – max – for 30 years. Assuming that a municipal bond needs to take in taxes the same way a mortgage takes in payments, and Newton can issue bonds at 4% for each million borrowed for construction we’d need to pay about $57,300 annually, or $1.7M over the life of the loan. So a $1.3M/annual ask sets a max project price of about $22.5M
A third thing is that most construction estimates do not include “movable” furniture and equipment (MFE). All of those desks, bookshelves, chairs, cafeteria tables, etc. – Not included. New computers – not included. Moving/Storing/Reusing current MFE – not included.
$18.75M (my highest, worst case estimate, given I’ve spent about an hour on this) + $2.05M acceleration = $20.8M. So you’d still have $1.7 for that MFE.
Yeah; I’d like to see a breakdown. But what I’d like even more is a $4M-$5M annual ask; where the town “banks” the money during the design phase for these schools and pays cash for the construction. I’m all for schools – paying interest to others to finance them, not so much. But I don’t see that option on the table.
Anne
“Yeah; I’d like to see a breakdown. But what I’d like even more is a $4M-$5M annual ask; where the town “banks” the money during the design phase for these schools and pays cash for the construction.”
Great suggestion. I was thinking about that myself, but I wasn’t yet sure what the annual tax premium would be. From your estimate, it’s about $250 per year average, per school, for a relatively short period of time, and then, done (rough estimate based upon 20,000 homes, excluding commercial taxpayers, so could be less).
By the way, it seems that Angier is under way in some way or other, without an over-ride. Is this true, and what’s that all about?
Ted, I’d be the last one to argue that the BOA shouldn’t be asking any and all questions about this override: after all I felt it didn’t do that thoroughly enough last time. And I’ve said as much to any aldermen I’ve chatted with about this.
@Barry, I just disagree with your assertion that the initial costing estimates of Angier or Cabot are too high. And there’s an independent party MSBA, who’s tasked with helping vett these estimates. I have had discussions with the folks who have put a lot of time into developing these estimates; have you? If not, I’d urge you to. Makes the discussion potentially a lot more relevant.
Anne,
The mayor’s presentation says that the budget is $35 to 37 million, but the state picks up as much as $12 million, so your estimate is close, but not exact. Good job. You must be an engineer or an accountant. But, I was comparing total cost to the total cost of other schools, and we seem to be out of line.
Dan,
I haven’t talked with the people you mentioned. If you have, then can you explain the discrepancy? Are the estimates correct? If Angier is in fact beginning as we speak, then we must be more accurate now than for Cabot or Zervas. If so, is it that we are getting gold-plated schools? That was my first claim, not that the estimates are incorrect. NNHS is gold-plated. We can’t afford to do that for all the buildings that are falling apart in Newton.
Second, how is the $40 million for Zervas explained? It’s pretty high, for refurbishing and some addition. And, it appears from the mayor’s presentation that the state isn’t covering any of this.
Thanks Barry! I have done some estimating over the years, and I’d say that I’m OK at it. The trick is to know what to factor in as a budget buster – and there are some people (not me) who are just uncanny at ferreting them out. Like I said – this was about an hour of effort. If anyone has a link to the backup – fr any project – I’d love to review it. (My family made endless fun of me for the hours I’ve spent pouring over the CIP).
Ted,
Obviously you’re concern and all the BOA’s concerns are extremely important and need to be answered. My problem is that I don’t see the urgency in people. I’d like to see nightly meetings between the mayor/boa/sc, not weekly or monthly. I just don’t see it.
Also, as far as you’re concern about kids being in school during renovations, what do you think hospitals do when they renovate? Do they relocate patients to other hospitals? Of sourse not. It’s done all the time.
Tom,
Hospitals do renovate with patients in the building all the time, but what you may not know is that modern hospital design calls for the use of interstitial floors so that electrical, plumbing, and HVAC can be shut down/upgraded only in isolated areas. This means construction debris can be much more easily partitioned and large areas don’t need to be shut down when renovations are required.
I’d be surprised if some of these schools even have zoned heat, let alone the ability to isolate areas without massive shutdowns. While it can be done while the school is open, phasing the work to occur after hours/on weekends, only in certain places, dependent on ectra work to allow partial shutdowns, all sound like great ways to add cost while not getting a better final product.
Anne,
Thanks, I didn’t know any of that. Thanks again. I still think that renovations can be done in schools without moving the kids. It just takes some thought from people who know what they are talking about.
@Tom, what Anne said about renovating in place. Zervas was built in 1954, and is a small, single story building with five modular classrooms with only 36,000 square feet of space, way less than is required for the number of students. It is an elementary school, not a hospital, so I sincerely doubt that it has a particularly sophisticated ventilation system. I don’t know whether there is asbestos or other hazardous materials in that building, but I would not be surprised either. During renovation, there will be numerous construction vehicles, cranes and various other vehicles on site during construction, as well as construction and demolition materials, staging areas, etc. Do you really want kids as young as 5 spending 6 hours a day on a site with heavy construction vehicles in a building where the dust in the air could have permanent, deleterious affects on their health, to say nothing of the faculty and staff? I don’t.
As far as urgency, we met just last night for three hours with the School Committee to review the Angier project. Ald. Rice, Fuller and Gentile meet regularly with school and city officials to review the progress of the Angier project. The board as a whole will meet again on November 29 to discuss the ballot questions again. We aren’t going to advance the ball by beating the issue to death night after night in meetings that do not convey any new information. So you might want to climb down off that high horse of yours and check out the view from where the aldermen are standing, on the ground.
As I said, this is not my first rodeo and the course of these school projects generally follow a certain arc. These are old buildings that present a lot of challenges for renovation or replacement. Last night, we looked at the Angier project. All of the options discussed–renovation, replacement, one building, two interconnected buildings, compact design, spread out design, etc.–all have pros and cons that are a direct and proximate result of the incredibly constricted site, the need for parking, and state constitutional laws concerning the use of the open space next to the existing school. Some of the options are clear non-starters (i.e., renovation). Others are more or less kid and parent friendly. Still others would satisfy the needs of the education program and sustainable design, but would overwhelm the village center and surrounding residential neighborhood. And all of the designs have certain cost implications. As I said last night, a lot of these issues reminded me of the similar albeit far greater challenges posed by the planning for and construction of the new Newton North. And, as the Ward 2 aldermen were quick to point out, the construction management plan and the parking management plan before, during and after actual construction will be a significant challenge in this neighborhood, where commuters fill the T parking lot and compete with the school, businesses, churches, a nursing home and residents for parking on the surrounding streets on a daily basis.
At this point, I still have more questions than answers about the proposed override and debt exclusions. My decision as to whether to put some or all of them on the ballot in March 2013 will depend heavily upon what answers the administration comes up with at the next meeting on November 29.
Ted, what about this: Most schools have a flat roof. The city can place modulars on the flatroof and recreate an entire floor. The modulars can be in place in less than a summer. Instead of swing space, build a floor on the roof and anyone that has claases where construction is going on gets to have classes in the modulars. Not ideal, but the kids don’t have to move and at the end of construction the school will have an extra floor to beat the space problem we are having.
You lose people, Ted, with comments such as this: So you might want to climb down off that high horse of yours, and check out the view from where the aldermen are standing, on the ground.
When residents read these demeaning comments, they come away thinking the Aldermen are arrogant when they are not. The Aldermen work hard for the residents of this city and most often do so without calling attention to themselves or demeaning those who disagree with them.
Just tonight I watched Vicki Danburg sit through a lengthy meeting about a neighborhood issue, then speak on the behalf of the local residents. She had a point to make about a deeply held belief and she did so in a room on the second floor of City Hall and left it at that. At no point did she denigrate the individuals who opposed her position. The story won’t make the Tab and she won’t write about it on the blog, but tonight there’s a neighborhood in Newton Centre that I’m sure appreciate her time and attention.
@Tom, I am not an engineer, but I have doubts about putting modulars on a roof.
@Jane, I am who I am. I work my rear off for the people of this city, and spend almost every night of the week away from my family at city hall doing the people’s business, and a significant amount of time doing city business elsewhere (I spent most of yesterday dealing with parking issues in West Newton instead of at my office doing my day job). I also don’t take crap from anyone. I tell it like I see it, and I am content to let the voters decide. Personally, I think people value frankness and honesty over political pander. I have a strong personality, strong opinions, and I am a strong advocate. That is the kind of representative you want on your side, and that you hate to have on the other side of any issue. If people don’t like that, they are free to run or vote against me. Indeed, I would encourage them to do so.
@Tom – Modulars on the roof?!?! Zervas was built in 1954. I doubt that a) the existing structure could hold the modulars, b) the existing Mechanical/HVAC/Electrical/Plumbing systems could support it, and c) that the roof does not need extensie work on it’s own.
.
To solve each: 1) upgrading the structure is EXPENSIVE, and shows almost no return in permanent new classroom pace, 2) upgrading the systems to support this presents all of the original problems of renovation – because you’d need to increase capacity/zone PRIOR to installing the modulars, and 3) I suspect that the roof, being built in 1954, and no doubt refinished since then, is full of PCBs. (They were commonly used, starting in the 1950’s in asphalt roofing materials, plasticizers, rubberizers, and tar paper).
.
I suppose we could consider phasing construction with students in place – but I believe that the town has already hired firms like DiNisco “who know what they are talking about” (if you want to cast aspersions on the selected architects/engineers/estimatos/etc, which may be valid, please make that point directly) – and that they have concluded that this just isn’t feasible for the money it would take. Not that it’s impossible, but more that if Newton is willing to spend $X million dollars, plus financing/interest, I suspect that the recommendation is that we could get things that greatly benefit the town in for the next 50 years instead of the none-to-minimal right-now benefit that renovation while occupied presents.
Ted-you just don’t get it. It’s possible to advocate for your position and still treat people with respect.
Two random thoughts about this thread…
1.] Fact: You cannot renovate any of these schools while children are in attendance. We already learned that lesson with the old NNHS.
2.] Opinion: As currently constructed by the mayor, the two debt exclusion overrides have little chance of passing. The MSBA is screwing Newton, and Mayor Warren is saying “thanks.”
The MSBA is telling Newton what the new regulations are for reimbursement for school building projects. We have to comply with these regulations, just as every other city and town in the state has to. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Jane– What we have to do, is fix our school buildings. Whether or not we “have to comply” with the MSBA’s rules that discriminate against Newton, should be an open question. In my opinion, it’s worth the effort to challenge those rules before we embark on a path that is likely to fail. Unless of course you, [or anyone else], can explain how debt exclusion proponents are going to get favorable votes from 90% of the city that will not directly benefit from the renovation of a neighborhood school, in an area where they do not live.
I strongly support an override. If necessary I will vote for all three of the overrides proposed by Mayor Warren. But frankly, this is one of the most ill conceived initiatives I have ever seen from City Hall. Let me ask you this, Jane. What would you suggest as a “Plan B,” if these debt exclusions go down down in flames?
Anne, I guess I wasnl’t clear. I am advocating for the modulars on the roof for the schools that are proclaimed capable of renovations. The schools that people (“engineers, etc.”) claim to be replaced with new schools, I wouldn’t change that.
But for the 11 or so schools that need renovations I would examine the roof as a possibility for swing space. After renovation, keep the modulars and we can use them to solve our space needs issues. There are modulars that look like real buildings and are incredibly nice. Some of those 11 or so schools should be able to carry the weight and additions of a new floor. Most 2/3 floor schools can be built upwards.
I love that now that we got rid of a 35 year old school, we now look at a 50 year old school as a relic. It’s not. Just some thoughts.
The lesson from the old NNHS is that the specifics of that building (e.g. orientation of HVAC distribution, classroom/core space relationships) made safe renovations with kids in place very difficult. With other buildings, we may cut off legitimate options by drawing blanket conclusions without investigating the specifics of each situation.
Obviously the effort to fund Zervas during this override will be greatly strengthened by details of staging or swing space that the City has not yet presented. I am not privy to Zervas information that is not public, but I expect that more information will come soon and we can then discuss specifics.
To Tom’s suggestion that modulars be placed on building rooftops, this is conceptually interesting but unless the building was designed with this in mind, new rooftop construction in general will require significant upgrades to existing foundations, columns and beams, and a seismic (earthquake) retrofit of the lateral force resisting system of the base building. Then there are vertical circulation tie-ins, consisting of at least two staircases and an elevator, and these will drop right into the footprint of the base building. As a practical matter this level of work involves a gut of the building below, which may result in a construction time frame as long as new construction. Oh, and the building would need to be vacated during this work too.
Think of expanding a building upwards as a solution when there is no more land footprint available for new construction. Don’t think of it as simple, cheap, fast, or disruption-free.
Mike –
Newton South was renovated while the school was occupied. I would imagine that whether a school needs to be vacated during renovation depends on the specifics of the building.
So, I keep coming back to the timing issue. Here is what the administration told the TAB about Zervas a few weeks back:
Now, I understand that the city estimates that it will cost about $40 million for either a renovation/addition or replacement at Zervas. But relying on estimates before a feasibility study has been conducted, let alone a site plan developed or approved, feels like deja vu all over again to me. (I recall that the original plan to renovate NNHS with students in place was estimated to cost $39 million.) I sincerely hope I am wrong.
I would also add that the past and present Zervas parents I have spoken to recently ranged from skeptical to incredulous about the prospect of renovating with students in the building.
@Steve– Can you give me a specific example of any of these proposed renovations that may be safe to conduct while the building is occupied by students?
@Gail– You are completely correct. NSHS was renovated while the students were in attendance. [I think this relates to Steve Siegel’s point as well]. My son started at South the year the renovations began, so I saw a lot of the work taking place. Having some background in construction, I was appalled that such a dangerous situation was ever contemplated. On several occasions I personally saw heavy equipment operating within 10′-15′ of rooms that were occupied by students and staff. There was a construction related fire in one of the buildings, and countless safety evacuations. The noise alone, created an environment that was not conducive to learning.
Aside from the danger alone, the expense of attempting to mitigate that danger on a daily basis, was one of the primary drivers behind the cost overruns. Projected budget: $30M-$35M. Actual cost: $60M-$70M. Let’s not make that same mistake again.