Monday, July 15, 2019

Doherty building public session

There's a lot of schmoozing going on here
Hey! The presentation is posted here.
update on the Feasibility study and the site study so far
"we like the back and forth" we're told by Russ Adams (Worcester DPW)
and there's no way I'm going to be able to keep up with names
the principal architect is currently speaking
overview of project and schedule (starting with literal overview through drone footage)
MSBA building process: now in module three, the Feasibility first part
fall of 2024 for occupancy of school; "that's the best case scenario"
preliminary design program phase of project

three tracks currently:
  • evaluating sites "where appropriate for this particular project"
  • looking at this building the "no build" option
  • program development (building to suit program of education)
survey of Doherty staff: priorities for future Doherty High, echoed in other programming meetings
highest priorities are technology integration and real-world connections
three (afternoon) visioning sessions
  • brainstormed some project goals: community use, welcoming, flexible and adaptable, career pathways, wellness and athletics "game programs on site", improved building functionality
  • design patterns: clusters of learning, transition from middle school, enginnering academy as a team, community access, sustainability, display and exhibition, agile classrooms, indoor/outdoor connections, breakout spaces
  • key adjacencies and guiding design principles: real world connections, mastery-based learning, sustainability, fexilbity and utility, personalization and ownership
overarching organization of building

chapter 74 programs: strategic plan and vision sessions, expanding programs that are available here "was important overall" 
expand engineering program to 400 students overall; maketing, management and finance, programming and web development, construction craft laborer (on Thursday night's School Committee agenda)

"additionally" adding an academy "based on test scores" beginning at Forest Grove in biotechnology, 50 students per grade
"very excited about programming to date"

more than double existing size: upwards of 400,000 square foot (current is 170,000)
doubling of parking
access around full building
multiple dropoff

Parra: site is actually the challenge of it
requirements, then quadrant map 
will be investigating sites in next months

about 50% are walkers
full and half buses to be kept separate from parent pickup
discussing with staff and athletic program at this schools: football, softball, track dedicated to schoo
site of about 13 acres; field programs is about another 13 acres
that is both unnecessary and insane
majority of 10 acre site are near airport and near Paxton and Holden line
nothing found with that avenue
"obviously anything under conservation would be eliminated"
anything Massport out
anything developed out
about a dozen sites of about 10 acres
Big D, just outside quadrant: not an ideal site (topography)
sites off of Flagg Street very difficult topography
parcel with planned development
in the end: 
  • Chandler Magnet (22 acres)
  • existing site
  • Foley Stadium
Q is about involvement of MSBA: MSBA isn't on site acquisition
does thorough review of documents
Q what is Foley used for?
"for school purposes"
Q: how can they build over a waterway?
Beaver Brook runs through
Q: 20 acre property here?
Doherty is on 12 acres
Q: thinking on Chandler Magnet site?
congestion with Worcester State site
Q: did you look at Harrington-Richardson on Park Ave?
"a line is a line; it's not a wall; it's moveable"

looking at topography, environment, neighborhood impact
ability to meet site program
building and fields
utilities and expansion
swing space and phasing

Chandler Magnet: 20 acre site, grade change
very restricted site on May and Chandler

Foley: 14 acres: everything across the street is in a floodplane

Q moving kids off site "seems very important to mention"

my note was that many recent urban high school buildings are of this size but take less space: see Arlington, Lowell, Everett

comment: "suburban fields crucial" to "not being Springfield" or other urban areas
that's my best paraphrase; I didn't really follow that

no one seems to be mentioning that if you build on Foley, the entire system loses athletic fields

Q: who will decide when and where our kids go during building?

site meeting on August 19
building committee will vote in September

Q: if you build on Foley, where will the athletics of the districts go?
"certainly that's a drawback of that site"

Q: if the building doesn't go here, what happens to the site?
They don't know

Q: is it conceivable to look at athletic fields at a different site as part of this or does it impact reimbursement?
yes, it is doable, but it won't include MSBA

suggestion that there be a building committee meeting prior to the vote
with information about where the kids will be,, requested

Q: at what point is there a priority to not include the fields, due to site restraints?
that's the next step

someone suggested Clark Arboretum (it's under a deed trust)

No comments: