MEMBER SIGN IN
Not a member? Become one today!
         iBerkshires     Williamstown Chamber     Williams College     Your Government     Land & Housing Debate
Search
Mount Greylock Narrows Building Concepts to Three
By Stephen Dravis, iBerkshires Staff
01:29AM / Friday, June 05, 2015
Print | Email  

School Building Committee co-Chairmen Mark Schiek and Paula Consolini.
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — The Mount Greylock School Building Committee on Thursday selected three conceptual designs — two addition/renovations, one new construction — to forward to the Massachusetts School Building Authority.
 
The committee selected the drastically different options for add/renos: one that will retain only the gymnasium wing of the current junior-senior high school and another that maximizes the existing building, lopping off only a 1968 addition.
 
For a new build, the committee favored one of two concepts presented that builds on the green space behind the existing school building.
 
Now all three plans will be reviewed by the MSBA to see whether they satisfy the requirements of the "preliminary design program," which the committee approved in a separate vote on Thursday evening.
 
The three plans also will be more fully developed by the district's architect, Design Partnership of Cambridge, which presented seven basic renovation concepts and four basic new builds for the committee to choose from.
 
The committee's preferred new design (N3B in the Design Partnership's presentation) carries a preliminary price tag of $68.7 million, of which an estimated $42.8 million would fall on the two-town school district after the MSBA's anticipated contribution.
 
The two chosen add/renos carry very different preliminary price estimates: $56.5 million for R1 (maximizing the old building with a small addition in the front) and $68.2 million for R7 (retaining only the existing gymnasium).
 
The committee took into account community feedback from public listening sessions in Lanesborough and Williamstown, and the final vote aligned with the preferences expressed by community members at those meetings.
 
Although the final vote of the committee was 9-0, one member argued strongly that the committee should not advance R1 because of hidden costs that do not show up on the bottom line.
 
"I'm not surprised it got the most votes because it had the lowest potential costs," said committee member and Mount Greylock Regional School Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Greene.
 
"It's also the most disruptive, longest-term project. It's the one option where you don't build a new space where you can put students while you're demolishing the old space."
 
Greene also argued that the R1 would create the potential for hazardous materials from demolition circulating in the airspace of the still-in-use building.
 
Owner's Project Manager Trip Elmore of Newburyport's Dore & Whittier (the building committee's adviser), sought to allay Greene's concern by noting that most of the demolition and construction would be consolidated in the summer months, but Elmore agreed that the plan — unlike a new build or a renovation that involves a more substantial addition — could be disruptive.
 
"Hopscotching around the building does occur, and quite often," Elmore said. "Not that I'm advocating for it, but that does happen."
 
Elmore said that in the next design phase, Design Partnership will take a hard look at the phasing of a potential R1 renovation.
 
"The sense I'm getting is this is the one that saves literally the most of the building you could possibly save," co-Chairwoman Paula Consolini said of the R1 design. "But it may be similar to the base repair, an intellectual exercise. You can't know until you get to the next phase."
 
Greene responded that she was concerned about advancing an "intellectual exercise" as one of just two renovation options to be seen by MSBA.
 
"R1 seems to me like a real unknown," she said.
 
Committee member Thomas Bartels said R1 warranted further study, if only because it was the one renovation/addition option with a price tag much different than the new construction options. Based on, again, very preliminary estimates, the other six renovation options ranged from $65.1 to $73.2 million. The four new builds ranged from $67.8 to $68.7 million.
 
"It's also the most sustainable option," Bartels said, referring to the high reuse of the existing building. "I'm reluctant to exclude it now from further consideration.
 
"I think we owe it to the community to have a real low-cost option on the table." 
 
Committee member and Williamstown Selectman Hugh Daley agreed.
 
"We owe it to ourselves and the community to research this one further," Daley said. "If it's wrong, we'll kill it in the next phase."
 
Greene's argument was supported by former Mount Greylock School Committee member David Langston, who addressed the committee from the floor.
 
Architect Robert Bell of Design Partnership of Cambridge goes over the options with the committee.
"R1 makes use of a building that is a loser," Langston said.
 
The committee considered forwarding three add/reno options to MSBA (it was required to send at least two), but Design Partnership's Daniel Colli discouraged that idea.
 
"We need to look at this R1 scheme closely," Colli said. "The more [concepts] you move forward, the less we'll be able to focus on any one scheme. If we have more time to look at that phasing plan, we'll be able to look at that more closely."
 
Greene remained unconvinced.
 
In a vote seeking the committee member's preferences by ranking the options, she initially ranked R7 (the eventual first place winner) No. 1 and R1 as her second choice. But after the votes were tallied, she asked to change her rankings and move option R4 to her second choice.
 
Greene appeared to be persuaded by the fact that neither Mount Greylock Principal Mary MacDonald nor interim Superintendent Gordon Noseworthy ranked R1 in their top three, and both listed R4 as their second preference.
 
Once it was clear that the majority of the committee was committed to the two renovation choices — and only two — Greene joined in the 9-0 vote to send the options to Boston.
 
But prior to the ranking exercise, she made a comment that indicated the depth of her conviction.
 
"I understand the rationale [for advancing R1], but my concerns aren't going to go away," Greene said. "I'll just say it again: If it turns out our only other option [R7] isn't realistic for some reason and it turns out R1 is extraordinarily problematic, then we've eliminated another viable option.
 
"But that's the game we're playing."
 
In other business on Thursday night, the School Building Committee approved a $4,551 expenditure for further testing of current site conditions: $825 to study the existing slab to see whether it is suitable for renovation and $3,726 to look at the suitability of well water at the site.

MGRHS Options School Project 05212015

Comments
More Featured Stories
Williamstown.com is owned and operated by: Boxcar Media 102 Main Sreet, North Adams, MA 01247 -- T. 413-663-3384
© 2011 Boxcar Media LLC - All rights reserved