By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — Get out your checkbook Westport. The town’s biggest expenditure ever, for a new Long Lots Elementary School, is on the horizon.
The Long Lots School Building Committee will vote sometime next week on which of six possible plans it will recommend.
Committee Chairman Jay Keenan noted at Thursday evening’s meeting that it would be the costliest project in town history, after the Staples High School rebuild, which cost $79.8 million.
The committee heard cost estimates for the possible plans. They range from $91.7 million to $107.5 million.
As expected, the two schemes that would renovate the existing structure or renovate with additions, were significantly more expensive — up to $16 million more than an all-new building.
Here are the estimates:
A: Renovate as new, $107.5 million.
B: Renovate with large addition, $105.6 million.
C: New building, with ballfield where Westport Community Gardens are, $92.1 million.
C (ALT): New building, leaving gardens intact, $94.3 million.
D: New building (repositioned from option C), placing baseball field where gardens are, $91.7 million.
E. New building, putting new school where gardens are now, $91.5 million.
It was a night for reports, and last-minute architectural input.
The committee heard a report on parkland use and possible places to locate a replacement ballfield if the baseball field at Long Lots was lost. It was discussed by Parks and Recreation Director Jennifer Fava.
Her report listed potential new field locations at the Lillian Wadsworth Arboretum and Winslow Park.
Potential new garden locations were said to be Baron’s South, the Lillian Wadsworth Arboretum, Riverside Park and Winslow Park.
All those possibilities presented a swirl of difficulties with existing zoning, parking, traffic or loss of open space, according to the memo.
Some of the 40-plus people in the audience at Thursday’s meeting asked if Fava could stay until the end of the meeting, when they could ask questions after the work session. But she left.
Joseph Vallone, an architect with an office in Saugatuck, brought two simple site plan suggestions he said would meet all the needs of the schools, Parks and Rec, and the gardeners.
Several neighbors from the Bauer Place neighborhood and Harvest Commons expressed concern about how a possible ballfield where the community gardens are now, and other site work, might affect runoff onto their properties. They said that already is a problem.
The gardeners, anxious about losing plots they’ve cultivated for 20 years, again had concerns.
Toni Simonetti asked why the building committee, when tasked with finding a way to replace a school for the Board of Education, took on a Parks and Recreation role of planning ballfields.
“Your mission didn’t really say represent Parks and Rec on how to manage athletic field usage and the demand and all that, your mission is to build a school,” Simonetti said.
“You got a very clear spec from the Board of Education and the school people, and what the school is that they would like from an educational standpoint and all that,” she said. “And yet, we’re still here talking about Parks and Rec athletic fields, and what really gets me is that Parks and Recreation and anyone in the administration will not discuss this …”
“If we were to build on the baseball field or the soccer field, the baseball and soccer people would expect us to replace those fields,” Keenan replied.
“If we built on top of the gardens, you’d expect us to replace the gardens,” he said. “If we’re building a new school on a campus, whatever we displace, we need to replace.”
A time and date have not been set for next week’s meeting.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 35 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
One very, very important clarification; the solution I presented was prepared using the massing previously presented by the architects retained by the town to provide the feasibility study, which is a two story building, not a three story building. We simply cut and pasted their building footprint and proposed two alternative locations for placement of the new 90′ baseball diamond and the parking lot.
Point being, we believe the town can construct their two story school, maintain the gardens and construct a new 90′ baseball diamond on this site.
However, I am advocating for a three story structure that would minimize the amount of exterior wall and roof surface thereby creating a more energy efficient school building. Most importantly, a more compact building massing would reduce the long term operating expenses paid for by the tax payers. Tax payers will be paying to heat and cool this new structure, 24/7, forever.
Reducing their proposed 80,000 SF footprint to a 65,000-70,000 SF footprint would provide additional open space for increased recreation space and parking. Rooms such as auditoriums, gymnasiums etc., can be partially buried into the natural earth berm, thereby reducing their exposed wall surface area.
Finally, while this is deemed a “feasibility study”, its work product is extremely malleable. I sincerely hope this major capital expenditure does not become a missed opportunity.
I see no reason why a Town like Westport would not champion the design and construction a super energy efficient, Net Zero (or as close to it as possible) state of the art elementary school building. I see no reason why this proposed building could not become the benchmark for all new school projects in Fairfield County. Westport is a community filled with its fair share sophisticated people who are both conscious and concerned about our climate issues. Let’s not miss an opportunity.
Working with the site’s natural topography, constructing a split level design solution with access to the first level from the western field, access to the second level from the eastern field (the existing baseball field) with a third level only one story above the eastern portion of the site, appears to be the solution worth the most serious investigation.
Just another follow up to set the record straight;
We are receiving feedback that the baseball field we incorporated into the site plan was 100′ short. This is completely false, the plan illustrates the standard field dimensions of 320′ from home plate down the left field line and 400′ from home plate to dead center field.
There are also rumors stating that to regrade for the location of the new field, it will cost $2.7M. This is also patently untrue. The second sketch locates the field in the parking lot which is almost dead level. The first design solution is in the location of the existing school structure which once demolished, the foundations will need to be removed and the site will need to back filled with soil compacted in lifts for stability, whether to be used for a ball field or a parking lot.
We are architects and engineers, this is sorta our thing.
The logic of “let’s move the ballfield to where the gardens and preserve are and move the gardens and preserve some place TBD” instead of “let’s move the ballfield to a place TBD” makes no sense on any level, including cost. Though you can rest assured that the costs associated with all of these plans include the costs of the ballfields but do not include the costs of destroying and rebuilding the Gardens and Preserve.
(I’m not even going to try to figure out how Plan C, with presumably the same building being built, can be more expensive when the Garden is not touched than when the Garden is destroyed and a ballfield is installed.)
That Jen Fava fled the building without responding to the general public speaks to the lack of regard that the administration holds for the Gardeners. It’s all about ballfields to these people.
Once again, Jay Keenan is presuming what the tasks of the LLSBC are instead of fulfilling the mandate of the BOE. He says “you’d expect us to replace the Gardens” but won’t include that proposal within any plan that would destroy the Gardens. He has previously said it was all about the Ed Specs, knowing that it wasn’t, never sharing that information with the general public until he was asked at a BOE meeting. The utter mendacity is dumbfounding.
John Suggs comments on possible ground toxicity at a proposed Parks and Rec Dept. alternative town site is a red flag. May we please have a response and/or more info on the viability using such land, Ms. Fava?
https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/29903/637302570450630000
Someone is thinking “out of the box”.Build the new school with 3 stories and a smaller footprint. Save the gardens and the preserve. Make fields and park cars underground.. Save the trees,birds and insects. Put pickle ball on the roof or in the basement.
Jo Ann Davidson