Embedded Files
The Building Committee wants to rebuild the school, as do we, and most Arlingtonians. However, you should be aware of the details of the project:
Statements and Questions about the project.
( scroll down.)
They’re going to save the historic buildings/facades and lawn, right?
Are the buildings historic or architecturally significant?
Other options were too expensive / The current plan is low cost
Phasing/Staging/Educating Students while building a school that saved the facades and lawn wouldn't work
They’re going to save the historic buildings/facades and lawn, right?
People who don't agree with the current BC Plan should have spoken up earlier
People trying to change the AHS project to protect the open space and save historic and architecturally valuable facades want to stop the improvement of the high school
The open space isn’t used much and that means it isn't worth saving.
Answer: NO
Unfortunately, though town sentiment was strongly expressed to the Building Committee (BC) save open space and historic buildings in the months up to their June 26 decision , the BC chose instead to demolish all of the buildings and facades and to reconstruct a new 25-50 year structure on the existing stately lawn, taking almost ¾ of the existing open space.
The new structure will be in a much more urbanized surrounding, including the construction of a new road behind the building, elimination of the current Mass Ave vehicle drop off, and the creation of a traffic mess on Mill and Grove Streets.
Are the buildings historic or architecturally significant?
Answer: YES, FIRSTLY BECAUSE OF THEIR PRESENCE FOR NEARLY 100 YEARS AND OPEN SPACE, BUT ALSO ON THEIR OWN MERITS:
In fact, the buildings were constructed over many periods. The Fusco dates to 1914 and the Collomb to 1938. Both buildings have been included by the Arlington Historic Commission on the town’s list of historic properties.
The Arlington Historic Districts Commission has also voted to save the buildings/facades and the open space that the green represents. In November, 2018, Preservation Massachusetts designated AHS and its campus as one of just a few “Most Endangered Historic Resources” in the Commonwealth, because of the irrevocable threat of demolition and open space loss to the townspeople and the state.
The Fusco building was designed by a graduate of Arlington High.
The Collumb building was designed by the same architect who designed the Arlington Central Fire Station (INSERT LINK to DUFFY’s EMAIL ABOUT THE HISTORY)
Other options were too expensive / The current plan is low cost
ANSWER: UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE BC JUNE 26 DECISION, COSTS WERE STATISTICALLY ABOUT THE SAME.
There is a lot of room for budget adjustments in the current phase of work. In fact, until June, the all of the 3 main plans were considered to be essentially within the same budgets and time frames. It appears what happened is that the Building Committee and the architect, HMFH, made a decision to emphasize the current Option 3a's merits and make Options 1 and 2 less appealing.
The BC has chosen a plan that will be the most expensive public general purpose high school ever constructed in Massachusetts history and probably in US history. CHRIS LORETI comments
Over the period of the BC working with the community through June 2018 and just prior to their decision to go with 3a, all of the options were basically about the same cost and time frame to deliver. IS THERE A QUOTE FROM LAURIE COWLES in June we can attribute?
By the BC’s own analysis of renovation costs (DOCUMENT?) the Fusco building was listed as $19M and Collumb $9.5M to renovate, yet they produced a $308M teardown, including $70M in non-education related costs.
Documents handed out by the BC after chosing 3a showed options 1 or 2 costing an additional $25M more. This is the cost of the “Net Zero” energy saving measures that the MSBA will not reimburse Arlington for, but which the BC has chosen to include, using an Architect, HMFH, which has not done this before and hasn’t completed a building of higher than LEED GOLD standards (DOC?). Isn’t the certainty saving the open space and the historic character worth the same money allotted to unproven Net Zero goals? Also, the additional cost, if any, would be partially reimbursed by MSBA
Demolishing the existing buildings will carry a high environmental cost – there is embodied energy in the buildings which stand. To remove them costs in demolition and landfill costs, as well as detracting from the character and quality of life for Arlington’s citizens.
Phasing/Staging/Educating Students while building a school that saved the facades and lawn wouldn't work
Answer: NOT TRUE - AND OPTION 3A TRADES THE CHANCE OF LESS DISRUPTION DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BUILDINGS, LOSS OF TREES AND SPACE AND THE CREATION OF TRAFFIC ON GROVE AND MILL STREETS
There might be some more use of modular classrooms, but in the scope of saving Arlington space and the facades behind the new building, the disruption would be managable. Other education sites during construction (Minuteman) haven't been seriously studied.
It’s true that when a high school is rebuilt, disruption occurs to students and faculty on the same campus. The following should be more seriously considered, particularly the worsened traffic Arlington will endure if Option 3a is implemented:
Minuteman’s old building remains and could be used during the several-year period to provide most or all the needs of our town’s students and faculty – and it offers adequate parking.
Temporary classrooms could be purchased instead of rented, resulting in a lower cost to the project; the BC
The disruption of being in temporary classrooms for several years should be seen in the context of the overall work – the buildings will stand for 50 or more years.
Option 3a adds a new disruption that the preservation options 1 and 2 don't introduce for the future of our town: Option 3a moves the front of the building behind the structures and requires a new road to be built from Mass Ave to Grove Street and to Mill Street. These intersections will require 2-3 new street lights and the additional traffic to those already over-used streets is predicted to be 30-40% of 1755 students upon completion.
Until June, the Architect was stating that all of the 4 remaining options would be about the same in disruption and cost. The takeaway now is that the architect and BC are unwilling or unable to carryout anything other than a teardown and land-loss project, unless they show otherwise very soon.
People who don't agree with the current BC Plan should have spoken up earlier
ANSWER: THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE - THE PROCESS HAD NO PUBLIC INPUT / COMMENT PERIOD BEFORE BEING UNCHANGEABLE
The BC has been working for 2 years with the town on the AHS rebuild, and has had 2 surveys of public opinion during that time. Until June,it seemed clear that the BC would choose a plan that preserved open space and the historic buildings and facades, since their own surveys showed that 50%, or more, of Arlington wanted preservation of open space, historic buildings and the spaces that we have lived with for 100 years.
The BC offered 2 options for historic preservation/open space saving and only 1 real option for teardown in its second survey. They met as school vacation was beginning and chose the teardown option, justifying it as having received the most votes of any of the 4 options, singly. They should have considered the weight of citizen opinion on the first 2 options for preservation together. In any case, when a large survey response clearly shows that attention to open space and historic buildings is important, chosing the 3a teardown and land-loss option is inappropriate.
Following their summertime BC decision, no serious period of public comment or feedback was allowed before the BC voted to request a ‘teardown only’ plan – one that cannot now be changed without resubmitting to the Mass School Building Authority.
Citizens had no real period to comment or change the BC decision between June 26 and July 10. After that time, the BC has not made meaningful changes to save the lawn or historic buildings from what they submitted to the MSBA.
As soon as the BC took their decision (June 26 and July 10 to send it to the MSBA) residents began voicing their opposition to the chosen option at all BC and public meetings, including at Town Day 2018 and via letters to YourArlington.com and The Arlington Advocate. The coalition of residents cannot fairly be accused of ‘being late’ in opposition, since the BC effectively was tasked with implementing the will of the surveys and townspeople, and led the town into thinking they would do that when they voted June 26 and July 10.
People trying to change the AHS project to protect the open space and save historic and architecturally valuable facades want to stop the improvement of the high school
ANSWER: THIS IS NOT TRUE. WE ALL AGREE A BETTER SCHOOL IS NEEDED, BUT WE FEEL THE COST OF LOSING THE LAWN, DROP-OFF LOOP AND FACADES IS TOO HIGH
Arlington needs an improved AHS, but it needs a school that works well and fits into the whole town. We are a community of classic 18th, 19th and 20th century New England architecture and vanishing open spaces. In the past we have chosen to defend our open spaces and to keep the historic character of our municipal buildings. All one need do is look at the buildings of Arlington Center to see that along with the Robbins Library, the Town Hall, the former school buildings (Senior Center, Arlington Catholic etc) and the places of worship, Arlington has successfully saved, or expanded buildings in a way that reflects and salutes their historical character. Yet we have not always done so – we lost the old Town Hall to demolition, and we lost the Unitarian Church to fire.
A project this big and expensive should deliver what all the taxpayers and the residents of town outside of the school system – as well as those in the school system hold important. To rebuild the school with a 25-50 year modern building, demolishing the Collomb facades and removing forever the trees and lawn that grace the Mass Ave green would not be progress.
In order to pass this large project, it must receive a 2/3rd vote in Town Meeting as well as 50% of the electorate in 2019. Supporters of saving the lawn, the drop-off loop and the buildings/facades want to help the project by making it work for all of the town, and respect town history and culture – as well as offering a great future for the education of our children.
Just a few voices are trying to prevent the improvement of Arlington and AHS
ANSWER: THIS IS WRONG, AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE PLAN POINTS BELOW
Over 300 people in Arlington have signed a petition, circulated by Save Our Historic Arlington High, which calls on the town to rebuild AHS, but with the new structures behind the existing facades – saving them, the stately lawn and the drop-off loop.
The Arlington Historic Districts Commission unanimously voted to recommend saving of the existing lawn and buildings and facades
The Arlington Historic Commission voted to put the AHS Fusco and Collomb buildings on the town historic register. It was noted by town historian Richard Duffy that the buildings and their elements are both historic and architecturally significant.
Preservation Massachusetts, a state-wide charity that works to save important places of historical and architectural interest, has chosen to highlight Arlington’s AHS by listing it as one of 11 Most Endangered Historic Resources of 2018.
Given that more than 50% of the BC’s own survey respondents said they cared about the lawn’s open space and the historic buildings/facades, a BC plan that doesn’t preserve these things will face a difficult vote in Town Meeting and in a town-wide election – unless we can convince them to save the facades and the entire lawn.
When citizens and residents hear about the AHS rebuild plan, they are usually surprised that the open space and historic buildings are slated for destruction, and that the town would consider moving the front of the building to the back, and worsening the morning traffic on Mill and Grove Streets even more. They are surprised that the town is willing to spend $23M for "Net Zero" energy efficiency standards in the project, but not about the same amount ($25M) to pay for the project to preserve the open space and facades (under Option 1 and 2).
People who support Arlington Public Schools AND saving the existing open space, drop-off loop and historic facades are largely current or past parents of AHS students and count many AHS graduates among their numbers. By contrast, the AHS BC has NOT ONE AHS graduate on its 17 member board. There is a striking lack of historical sense and awareness of architectural and open space on the BC.
The open space isn’t used much and that means it isn't worth saving.
ANSWER: NOT TRUE
While urban zones can make do without grass, trees, open spaces and expanses where the sky and distance exist, Arlington is lucky to be a town that has a little open space and in the past has been proud enough of what we have and the character it gives our town that we saved or enlarged it. We actively created Robbins Farm park, we worked to protect Elizabeth Island (in Spy Pond) and we have an active community that strives to save open spaces as both places to be used and to give us, literally, breathing room to be a town - not a city.
Open space like the stately lawn currently contains many class gifts - the memories of the students who attended. It also contains monuments to students and teachers and to alumni soldiers. It is a space that defines Arlington when it is walked or driven past. It invites comparisons to a park, to Boston, to Harvard Yard or just to communities outside the urban belt that still have town greens. It is the closest thing we have to a New England town green.
Open space in the form of the existing lawn on Mass Ave in front of the school is the largest such place between Cambridge and Lexington. It is the closest thing to a town green that Arlington has. It could certainly be used more, differently and better, but even in its current form it celebrates the openness and space that places of great learning
If the current 3a teardown plan isn’t changed / fails to get the support of the voters then the school won't be able to continue and there's no way forward to rebuild the school
ANSWER: THIS ISN'T TRUE. WE ARE CURRENTLY TRYING TO CHANGE THE PROJECT TO SAVE THE FACADES,LAWN and DROP-OFF LOOP. IF THIS FAILS AND THE PROJECT IS VOTED DOWN BY ARLINGTON, THERE ARE BETTER ALTERNATIVES
It’s important to note that the town tried to rebuild AHS in the 1970s (when the government was reimbursing much more of the cost!) and failed in the town wide election. That project didn’t meet the needs of all the townspeople. We were able to make satisfactory fixes and changes to the school until now. It is true that AHS accreditation has been threatened recently and that money will need to be spent on maintenance and fixes if the the project isn’t approved.
If the BC fails to change the project to respect the facades and existing lawn/drop off, they may cause the failure of the project. At that time, they will have 3 months to resubmit a new proposal to the MSBA. They could either work with the same architect HMFH, or one more interested in historic preservation work, like the firm that recently completed the Gibbs Middle School. They could change the plan to feature renovation, rather than tear-down. They could move non-education related uses out of the building and resubmit the new project of all-education related uses for a higher rate of MSBA reimbursement.
Additionally, the town has several large, unusual financial needs: The existing project to reconstruct the Department of Public Works and the need to pass a multi-million dollar Proposition 2 1/2 override. If the BC won't change the project to save the facades, drop-off loop and the lawn and the voters and Town Meeting refuse to support the plan, a better plan could come in several years, allowing these other large financial burdens to be committed first.
Google Sites
Report abuse