The renovation R1C would keep the front and courtyard section of the current building and revamp the front.
The second favorite would keep the gym, which is larger than current standards, and add a two story classroom structure.
N3b takes the building design for N4 and puts it in the back of the current building instead of the front.
Site options were limited by past uses of the property, including an airport. "There was a reason they built it where they built it, they did their borings, too," said Elmore.
Meeting attendees look over the R1 options.
N3 and N3b sport stickers showing their attractiveness.
An option, R7, to keep Mount Greylock's gym area and build onto the front was a favorite at Thursday's School Building Committee meeting.
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — There were clear favorites Thursday night among the 15 possible options put forward to replace the current Mount Greylock Regional School.
Preliminary costs ranged from about $57 million to $73 million total to house the expected 535 middle and high school students. Construction would take 22 to 28 months.
The School Building Committee reviewed seven potential renovations with three alternatives, and four options for new construction. The designs were initially presented the week before by Design Partnership of Cambridge, which came back with a few new proposals based on the committee's comments.
The committee also had a look at renovating the current school, which has a price tag of $58 million. The main drivers of the cost are full replacement of 177,400 square feet of roof and all the mechanicals — wiring, and heating and cooling and fire suppression — as well as the exterior envelope of windows and insulation.
And while it would require upgrades to meet new code including handicapped accessibility, the rebuild would not fully address the flexible learning, community development, collaboration, integrated environment and technology that the other options do.
The Massachusetts School Building Authority requires a study of upgrading the current building along with two possible renovation/rebuilds and one completely new building.
"If this meets the educational program needs, this is a viable option but at $58 million might not be the best option," said Trip Elmore of project manager Dore & Whittier. "If it's not going to solve your educational options for the next 50 years, they will not consider it."
The new designs by Design Partnership will address those educational needs as well as structural needs, said architect Robert Bell.
"The renovation seeks to meet the educational goals," said Bell, and includes knocking down walls, new lighting systems, ceilings, exterior envelope, and other options including roof, windows, exterior, new mechanical. "The look and appearance would be vastly different."
Among the three designs highlighted by the architects was a slight reconfiguration of the R1 design that maximizes reuse of the existing school by keeping the courtyard circle of rooms, the gym and auditorium. That 134,000 square-foot design also comes in at the least expensive at $56.5 million, with the school district picking up $28.5 million.
The second renovation option, R7, would keep the gymnasium wing only and build a two-story addition on the front. The design was considered well suited for collaborative or team teaching modules and efficient construction and minimum disruption to the site. Numbers had not been worked out for that design but it was expected to be about the same as the somewhat similar R6 at $68.2 million of which $41.3 million would fall to the district.
Two new construction alternatives would put the new school behind the old one, making them the least disruptive but setting them far back from the main road.
N3 would be a boxy building with common areas and a curved classroom wing linked through main entrance; N3b would take the preferred N4 design with an interior courtyard and place it on the N3 site. N3 at 133.8 thousand square feet would come in at $67.8 million with district's portion at $42.3 million; N3b did not have a cost estimate, but would be similar to N4 at 135.9 thousand square feet and a cost $68.7 million with the district at $42.8 million.
All the options can be seen below.
School Building Committee members cautioned that the figures are preliminary and subject to change.
"I think the thing really is not to fall in love with any of these numbers until the study is complete," said member Hugh Dailey.
"There are advantage in doing renovations, the MSBA will give you more money ... how much of your building your using you can get up to 5 percentage points," said committee Chairman Mark Schiek. "So that's why some of these numbers change dramatically. There are also limits to what MSBA will participate in.
"That's why I caution these are estimates based on discussion with the MSBA, based on the project manager's experience and with the architect."
Elmore said he spent a dozen hours building the estimates and that the figures are close to what the actuals will be based on current information.
"The 53 per cent [state] reimbursement rate is a known. There are other factors that could change," he said. Points awarded by the MSBA toward maintenance, chosing a "construction manager at risk" for building, etc., could change. "Those are all evaluated. The MSBA has limits on their participation so they will not participate at more than $287 a square foot. ...
"The R1 numbers are lower because the reimbursement was the highest and the non-reimbursement were lower."
The committee plans more outreach to gather input from the two communities in the school district, including an information session on the options at Lanesborough School on Thursday, May 28, at 7 and another at Mount Greylock on June 4.
Committee members, architects and some 20 community members got to weigh in on Thursday by placing stickers indicating their first and second choices on the designs hanging in the meeting room.
Not surprisingly, R1C and R7 for renovations, and new construction N3 and N3b (and to some extent N4), appeared to have the most stickers from both the committee and community.
The three selected options must be submitted to MSBA by June 11. The committee is also putting together a working group to investigate financing.
pittsfield.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.
MEMBER SIGN IN
An option, R7, to keep Mount Greylock's gym area and build onto the front was a favorite at Thursday's School Building Committee meeting.
