A cautionary note as we embark on more school projects. It seems the gym floor at four-year-old Newton North is in need of replacement, at an estimated cost of $225,000. Just Google and you can see the bid solicitation. I don’t know why the ‘estimated low value’ and ‘estimated high value’ would be the same.
While it looks fine from a distance, there are many places where gaps have opened up between the floor boards, which are a hazard for cutting players if they slide on the floor, as basketball and volleyball players may do. Although one of the volleyball helpers told me that while they’re supposed to be keeping track of such instances, she didn’t think there’d been any.
I haven’t been able to find out yet who pays for the new floor: is there still a holdback or bond with the general contractor four years after the fact? Does it come out of city funds? Did we buy an extended warranty on NNHS? Do we go after whoever installed the floor or supplied the wood? I’m guessing that the walls aren’t getting further apart, so I presume the wood is shrinking, having not been adequately dried or pre-shrunk before installation? Any gym floor experts out there?
Perhaps someone from the School Committee has more information.
Julia, I hear the school committee thinks it can get a good deal negotiating a friendly taking with Boston College for only $2.4 million.
Not good, I remember that part of the building could not build a basement structure because of the high water table. So perhaps the water levels underneath have come up very high and undermined the flooring.
By the way, the new Zervas will be built very close to high water marks.
Colleen, the water flowing under NNHS is the same water that flows under Zervas. Look at the old maps of Newton. That water is Cold Spring Brook. It emanates from Cold Spring Park and flows through the cemetery and in front of city hall. City Hall sits on landfill for what was once the southern part of Bulloughs Pond.
The water table beneath Zervas was recently established as 3 feet below current grade. That is why an underground parking garage is not an option at the site. Solid ground to which the new building’s pilings need to be driven is 30 feet below current grade (as deep as the new building will be tall). In addition to spending money to purchase land, this project will also spend part of the $40,000,000 to drive pilings to hold up the 3 story building.
BTW, Cabot school is situated on top of a water path coming from Edmands Park. It meets up with Cold Spring Brook at the north end of Cabot Park near Newtonville Avenue.
This water issue will continue to challenge us. At some point hopefully the SC will realize this issue and plan accordingly.
I don’t think the water table would be the problem here. If it were water vapor coming up because of a faulty vapor barrier or whatever you put underneath ground floor gyms, I think that would be making the wood swell, not shrink, so you’d have boards buckling up into little peaks, not separating.
Patrick, your post begs many questions which appear troubling. Since you are so knowledgeable I would imagine that you must be a very busy civil engineer, likely with geotech expertise, who just did not have the time to inform the rest of us about the ins and outs of your trade.
Perhaps when your schedule allows, you can fill us all in on whether the taxpayers of Newton should be concerned with the nature of the technology being used here. Is it out of the ordinary? Is 30′ unusual? What percent of the projects costs should we expect to be associated with this process?
I’d like to hear the answer to Julia’s question — did we make a claim to recover the loss here?
Julia, the city website indicates that the bid (#15-11) has been cancelled. No explanation.
Julia Malakie, as usual thank you for a very good explanation. I hope you are correct. Without knowing the details, there is another possible scenario. If the builders needed to install extra dehumidifying equipment under the gym to prevent the high water table from inducing moisture and mold, the side effect could be an enhanced drying affect under the gym floor, which could create the shrinkage situation. Maybe someone from the city and/or school committee could address the issue.
This could all be moot given Alderman Hess-Mahan’s comment that the city has closed the RFP with no explanation.
Elmo, I am unable to decipher the tone of your comments / questions so I will offer a response hoping I am not inducing an argument.
I am not a “very busy civil engineer, likely with geotech expertise, who just did not have the time to inform the rest of us about the ins and outs of your trade”. I am one of the people on this thread, to whom it was directed that I was not a well enough informed voter during the last override vote. I am trying to improve myself in that area before the next vote. I am a local resident with an interest in the Zervas project. I enjoyed many years as a Boy Scout, where I learned to read maps. I also have a hobby level interest in local history. My geography comments are based on having lived near Zervas for 35 years, studying the Newton maps on the city’s website, and watching the wonderful video offered by NewTV, where David Olson, our City Clerk, hosts a walking tour of our city hall’s grounds and building.
As far as the technology being used, I cannot answer you. I do not know what technology will be used to address supporting the building. I will say I have been impressed with the knowledge and professionalism of the consultants hired for this project. I assume they will select the correct technology. At what added cost I do not know. Steve Siegel has already commented in a prior thread that every project has infrastructure costs involved. From following this project it appears the Zervas infrastructure costs partially include: purchasing extra land ($2,415,000), excavating the current landfill, replacing it with a better quality landfill to absorb the water, rebuilding the culvert under the property that carries the water from Cold Spring Park under the school and across Beethoven Street to continue its connection with Cold Spring Brook, and some number of 30 foot pilings.
As far as the 30’ pilings, I use that length based on two pieces of data I collected. One was the information given to me by one of the professionals when they did the testing onsite (he also gave me the 3’ water table number; I had guessed 4’). The other is I know of a house near Zervas that was required to add about two dozen 24’ pilings when they were given permission to do a renovation on their house. I assume the house is close to the wetlands near Zervas. How many pilings the new building will need and the associated cost I do not know. If the SC chooses not to use the pilings in order to save some money, I suspect their 3 story building will over time become a two story building, then once again a one story building, and then eventually sink completely down to solid ground. That is why I associated the needed length of the pilings with the height of the building.
If you think I am crazy, so be it. However, I would invite you to visit BC High in Dorchester, which is built on landfill. In 1950 the good Jesuits had the foresight to put pilings under their initial building, McElroy Hall. They installed lovely granite stairs to the three front entrances. They overlooked supporting the surrounding grounds. Over the years as the landfill has settled and the building remains on the pilings, the Jesuits have needed to add additional stairs so the students can still gain access to the front doors. Unfortunately, their maintenance budget only allows for less expensive poured concrete stairs. So as you enter the building, you can count the number of stairs added to see how much the land has settled over the 64 years (a significant number since multiple elected city officials have indicated this new building will be with us for 100 years). Maybe they should not have used pilings so the building could sink at the same rate as the land. Who knows the right answer?
Patrick,
You have blended two recommendations from the geotechnical report – the peat below Zervas can be removed and replaced with engineered fill, or the peat can be left in place and piles can be driven through it and down to a suitable bearing layer. My understanding is that the pile solution is more economical than removal/replacement of soil for the specifics of this Zervas project. I’ve also noted that the piles leave the peat layer intact, and this may be preferred by ConComm as it maintains the water storage capacity of the subgrade.
Are you concerned about the use of piles on this project? Piles provide a practical means of supporting a building over soils with insufficient engineering properties. Most of the Back Bay, South End, and the flats of Beacon Hill are supported on piles. Piles provide a solution to a problem and they have a cost that is generally not high enough to make a project unaffordable. It’s not unlike needing to keep the rain out, so you buy a roof.
A well designed pile foundation will not have noticeable settlement over the life of the building it supports. A well designed foundation and slab system will not be damp, even with a nearby water table. Finally, I believe that the current site layout allows the culvert to remain in its present location.
Regards, Steve
Looks like we’ll have to replace the outdoor artificial turf playing fields as well — at both high schools ! — see link.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/how-safe-artificial-turf-your-child-plays-n220166
I am informed (a) that the floor will be replaced in June so as not to disrupt athletic events during the school year, (b) that it will cost less than the city thought it would, and (b) the contractor was informed of the problem within 6 months after the school opened and that the city may therefore have a legal claim for damages.
Jim, thank you for the link. I’m not surprised by this critical information about fake grass. My son played on this new turf while at college. The rubber pellets were all over his bedroom floor. I dreaded the thought of him playing on that stuff. How terrible this is for young athletes.
Steve, I am definitely in favor of using the pilings. I would hate to see a $40,000,000 project sink into the wetlands. I am not looking forward to the noise from the pile driving given the level of noise the Zervas neighborhood experienced from the two Comm Ave building projects last year. At least this pile driving should go quicker since they are pounding through peat instead of rock ledge. Of course if Zervas had the rock ledge, it would not need the 30′ pilings.
I have a friend who lived in the Back Bay in one of those houses on piles. The piles did their job. They were made of wood (tree trunks) and lasted well in excess of 100 years until the local water table lowered, the wood piles dried out, rot became a problem, and the structural integrity of the buildings became questionable. The market value of the homes in his neighborhood took a significant hit.
In the 13 years that I was part of the ZPTA, I never got into the crawl space under the Zervas building. I have been told by someone who did venture down there, that the mold and mildew was rather invasive and disgusting. I would expect the new building would be using current technology to implement a well designed foundation and slab system that will last 100 years. I am still waiting to hear what has caused the NNHS gym floor to have problems.
I was under the impression that the landfill excavation was to improve the land upon which the playing fields will be located; not the ground under the building (separate issue).
I am surprised to hear you say that the culvert will not be renovated like the school building is being renovated. I am assuming that it is the original culvert placed there 60 years ago when Zervas was built. I would think this would be a cost effective time to put in a new culvert structure given the site is expected to remain a school for the next 100 years.
Regards, Patrick
Colleen and Jim, I voted against the artificial turf at South, and got an ordinance passed which requires the city to use the safest alternatives whenever feasible. Synthetic turf has come a long way since Astroturf, which was basically a plastic rug on concrete. In particular, there are much safer alternatives for in-fill, instead of the crumb rubber which is actually made from old rubber tires and contain, among other wonderful things, lead and arsenic. These alternative fills also do not create as much heat, which can be over 120 degrees close to the surface in late spring, summer and early fall. The synthetic “grass” also comes in more environmentally friendly materials, and manufacturers are looking for durable materials that are less likely to cause “turf burn” and MRSA. But natural turf remains the better choice environmentally and for public health.
The bottom line is that municipalities choose synthetic turf because it can be used everyday, dries out quickly, and does not have to be “rested” during reseeding. The downside, of course, is that from and environmental and public health perspective, they are not the healthiest choice. Right now, Newton is considering putting synthetic turf at the new fields at the Newton Highlands playground on Winchester Street. My colleagues and I will be looking carefully at the process of choosing turf (I would prefer natural).
Ted, have you ever thought of running for School Committee? Since you seemed a little reluctant on the BofA race last time, and we seem to be getting a lot more info on this floor from you than any of the School Committee members, although perhaps Steve S was distracted by that pilings question.
Why is it that the city only “may” have a claim for damages if the flaw was reported to the general contractor within six months? And if it was known back then, why didn’t they take care of the replacement in the summer of 2011?
The information in the links on that bid page is interesting. There’s Q&A about acclimating the wood to the gym’s humidity and temperature. Also it appears the bid request went out with a spec for 1-1/2″ boards, vs the 2-1/4″ that it has, until bidders came back and said 1-1/2 is hard to get, are you sure you don’t mean 2-1/4. Which they did. That was kind of odd.
Julia, I had a brief conversation with the Chair of Finance outside a meeting room the other night because I was curious. But I do not have a lot of details. So I do not know what the warranty says, how long the warranty period is, and whether defects discovered after the warranty period are excluded. But these are all good questions.
Hi Julia,
Until it is, this isn’t a SC issue. The SC and NPS own normal maintenance and repair and a project of this size would show up in the CIP if we owned it. As a construction/warranty issue owned by the City, the SC hasn’t been informed.
Regards, Steve