July 2009

The Question Which is the best design approach for the modernization and expansion of Wayland High School?

This Fact Sheet explains the options considered, and the approach chosen.

Background The High School Building Committee (HSBC) is working closely with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) in this current phase of the project, Feasibility Study and Schematic Design. The design team, which includes HMFH Architects and KV Associates, the owner’s project manager, meets weekly with the MSBA to review deliverables and decisions. Wayland will receive 40% reimbursement from the state for this phase, and has been told to expect the same for later phases. At the end of the current project phase, with a budget established and MSBA approval, Wayland voters will be asked to vote whether to proceed with Detailed Design and Construction, possibly in November 2009.

The In January, the HSBC formed a Futures Team to develop an educational vision for the future of

Educational Wayland High School, and to prepare an educational specification. The educational specification

Vision defines the size and use for each space in the new school. The Futures Team’s vision includes a concept for locating and organizing the spaces, for greater flexibility and more collaborative learning. Their report can be found on the HSBC website. After analyzing Wayland’s enrollment history and projections, and preparing their own projections, the MSBA told Wayland to design for 900 students.

The MSBA issued guidelines for the educational specification that define what is eligible under their grant program. Although we requested less space in many areas, Wayland’s total space request is currently about 6% over the guideline, due to greater space needs in three areas: science classrooms, the Commons, and fine arts space. The MSBA encouraged the team to provide documentation and justification for the request, and is currently reviewing the material submitted by the project team. Also, it may be possible to reduce the excess during schematic design.

The figures above do not include physical education and athletic space. For this space, the team believes that it will be more cost-effective to renovate the existing Field House, rather than build new space according to the guidelines. The MSBA has agreed that we should proceed with analyzing this approach. Cost estimates are being developed now.

Design The next step in the MSBA process is to analyze different construction options, and working

Options closely with MSBA, select a preferred option and proceed with designing only one.

Analysis The team will then develop more detailed Schematic Design documents for the chosen option, and prepare a detailed project budget.

The architects developed four options using different construction approaches. All the options use the space plan laid out in the educational specification; all also assume renovation of the Field House. The team then analyzed the cost differences for each option. They did not analyze costs that were the same in each option. The HSBC also considered such factors as fit with the educational plan and vision; quality, durability and energy efficiency of the spaces; disruption and risk during construction.

No Budget The cost figures do not represent a project budget yet. Many cost items were not

Yet analyzed, because they are the same for each option (for example, the waste water treatment plant and the field house renovation). Also, the building design needs to be further defined before a budget can be established.

Results The table below shows the results of the comparative analysis. Building construction and phasing costs were analyzed in detail, and the construction professionals are comfortable that they represent a sound basis for choosing an option. For example, the “Construction” line in the table below is supported by separate estimates made up from over 200 scope categories. This analysis has been submitted to the MSBA for their review. Figures below are rounded.

	All Renovation	Part Reno. Part New	New 2 Building	New 1 Building
Construction duration (years)	3.5	3	2.5	2.5
Construction	$43,900,000	$43,700,000	$47,700,000	$47,100,000
Design and Mgmt	8,200,000	7,600,000	6,700,000	6,700,000
Moving/Temporary	3,100,000	2,800,000	600,000	600,000
Escalation and Contingency	13,500,000	12,100,000	8,500,000	8,400,000
Subtotal	$68,700,000	$66,100,000	$63,400,000	$62,700,000
*The total project budget will probably be between $60-80 million.*
Size (square feet)	147,440	146,000	157,000	159,300
Comparative cost/square foot	$269	$269	$266	$258
Cost above lowest option	$6,000,000	$3,400,000	$760,000	n/a
% above lowest option	10%	5%	1%	n/a

Options All Renovation: All existing buildings would be renovated to bring them up to current building and health and safety codes, and to meet the educational specification. An addition would be put on the back of the Fine Arts building to enlarge the auditorium and add new classroom space. During the renovation, students and staff would be moved into temporary space on site.

Part Renovation, new Classroom Building: The Admin, Commons, Math/English and Fine Arts buildings would be renovated as above, with the same addition to Fine Arts. The existing Language, Science and Social Studies buildings would be demolished and replaced with a new, two-story classroom building.

New Construction of Two Buildings: Two new buildings with a courtyard between would be constructed over the existing parking lot. Students and staff would move into the new buildings, then the existing buildings would be demolished and a new parking lot constructed there.

New Construction of Single Building: Same as above, but a single two-story building, no courtyard.

Why is renovation more expensive?

· It takes longer.

· It requires more temporary space and more moving.

· It is more complex and labor-intensive, because of the need to preserve and work around what will remain.

· It is riskier because there are more unknowns.

There are other advantages of new construction that are difficult to cost:

· It provides a better fit to the educational program, because the spaces can be located and organized according to the concept developed by the Futures Team.

· It results in a higher quality of educational spaces (better day lighting, higher ceilings, etc.).

· It will be more durable than renovated spaces (because there is more new material).

· The resulting campus will be “greener” and more energy efficient.

· The construction will be much less disruptive to students, staff and residents.

Chosen The HSBC chose New Construction of Two Buildings, despite the 1% cost premium over

Option the single building option. It better fits the concepts of the Futures Team and educational vision and plan, with its outdoor courtyard space; it provides better quality educational spaces (more day lighting and fewer interior classrooms); it is more efficient in square footage; and it offers more flexibility on the site.

More Info Visit http://www.waylandschoolcommittee.org/whs/hsbc/index.htm.