The future home of a brand new Pollard Middle School may currently be in use as a parking lot or a playing field. Or, a remodeled Pollard could remain at virtually the same Harris Avenue footprint it has occupied since the late 1950s.
The challenge of site selection was the most significant of many aspects of the proposed renovation of Pollard that were discussed at length at the Aug. 4 meeting of the Permanent Public Building Committee.
“This is our way of getting the conversation started,” Matt LaRue said early in the meeting. A principal of HMFH Architects, which is designing the project, LaRue walked the board through three approaches being considered during the project’s feasibility study phase.
The project, currently estimated at $313 million, is proceeding according to the template required by the Massachusetts State Building Authority for all school building projects that are asking for state funds. It requires that the town “develop and evaluate alternatives, and recommend the most cost effective and educationally appropriate preferred solution.”
HMFH provided three alternatives, all of which would convert Pollard from its current Grade 7-8 configuration to Grade 6-8 school:
- An “addition/renovation” of the current Pollard building.
- New construction at the current Pollard site
- New construction at the DeFazio complex
There were no cost estimates provided for the three options — those are expected before the end of the month. But there were dramatically different construction schedules, with the two new construction options possibly delivering a move-in date of September 2030. The addition/renovation approach would likely take two years longer.
“An addition/renovation project is going to take longer because it’s an occupied building. That means the project has to be done in phases,” LaRue explained.
“We’ve identified that as taking on the order of three-and-a-half years. This is our opinion based on our experience with other projects like this.”
“I think this is hugely important,” said Lynne Deninger, an architect and member of the PPBC. “The impact of the extended construction is a huge impact on the cost of the project.”
Hank Haff, the town’s director of building design and construction, concurred with Deninger and offered the construction of the Sunita Williams School as an example of the merits of new construction versus renovation.
“We didn’t have to worry about phasing,” Haff said. “It’s safety of students, it’s construction costs, it’s duration of construction. It’s all of those things.”
Town won’t be buying a farm
Haff also cautioned that the town has little to no chance of replicating the Williams school scenario of purchasing a multi-acre tract of mostly open land on which to construct the school, as was the case with the 2015 purchase of the former Owen’s Poultry Farm on Central Avenue as the Sunni site.
Given the paucity of open land in Needham, the options for Pollard are limited to the current playing fields at the back of the current Pollard buildings and the area around the current DeFazio parking lot that could also intrude on the playing fields, the tot lot and the nearby DPW buildings.
Both sites present an array of challenges related to competing uses, space constraints, drainage and stormwater management, wetlands considerations, dealing with the MBTA commuter tracks and others.
LaRue said his presentation was neutral and told the committee he was “introducing you to the feasibility of how the program could fit on these sites.”
The “add/reno” of the current Pollard would essentially occupy the same building footprint but increase the total interior square footage from the current 140,000 to 250,000 square feet.
“It’s a substantially larger square footage because we’re building up,” LaRue explained.
This would be achieved in three phases, with one new three-story wing being added each year over three school years while the school remains occupied.
“The first step in the process is to build a new three-story classroom wing at the front of the site,” said LaRue. “That’s critical because it allows the students to then get moved around and allow the phasing to happen.”
The town’s sixth graders would remain at the High Rock School during construction and not move in until completion, most likely in the fall of 2032.
The new construction option at Pollard would be what LaRue described as a “U-shaped building” in the open area behind the current Pollard.
“We’re trying to make the footprint as compact as possible, given the really tight constraints of the site,” LaRue explained.
“We’re proposing it as four stories, compared to the three-story wings.”
LaRue noted that there is a more than 30-foot elevation drop from Harris Avenue to the back of the Pollard site, which would lessen the visual impact of the four-story buildings on abutters. This would also require zoning relief as four-story buildings are not currently allowed.
“The issues here in terms of construction logistics are even more accentuated” than with the add/reno project, LaRue added. In both cases, there is not a lot of room for “laydown area” for construction material and equipment, which could lead to playing fields being needed for laydown areas, parking and other uses related to construction.
Those same issues are present, perhaps even more intensely, at the proposed DeFazio site. Both could require a shuttle bus for construction workers and the DeFazio construction could lead to the short-term loss of a playing field due to space requirements for construction activity..
The DeFazio site also involves public land that is under the jurisdiction of the Park & Recreation Commission. Prior to the town’s $6.5 million purchase of the Owen’s farm for the Williams School, Park & Rec had resisted relinquishing its jurisdiction of Cricket Field when that land was under consideration as a possible site to replace the Hillside School.
Park & Rec Commissioner Cynthia Chaston expressed Park & Rec’s concerns at the outset of the meeting, and members of the Pollard School Project Team may meet with the commission at its next meeting on Aug. 11.
Next steps
The three options will be evaluated by the two cost estimators who have been engaged for this project. “At our next meeting on the 25th (of August) we’ll have some conceptual cost estimates, which will be very, very broad brush on a per-square-foot basis,” Haff said.
That information will likely not be available before town’s next public listening session on the project, a Zoom-only session scheduled for Aug. 21 at 6:30 p.m.
In the interim, the town has launched a website for the project and mailed a townwide postcard offering an overview of the project.
The School Committee will be meeting Aug. 20 and is expected to discuss further the education plan for the project. There will be a joint meeting of the PPBC and the School Committee Sept. 2 when a vote is expected on which paths for construction will be explored in more detail.
Save as PDF