Mia Bomback reports:
Once again, the Long Lots School Building Committee failed to reach a final decision regarding a plan for a new elementary school.
But last night’s meeting brought a major development.
Literally.
Westport architect Joseph Vallone presented his own plan for the demolition and reconstruction of a new building that preserves the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve — and the property’s existing baseball field.
Vallone’s solution? A 3-story school.
It would be built on the site of the current baseball diamond.
He presented 2 versions. The new athletic field would be constructed where the school now stands, or on the current parking lot.
“This is 2023. We need to be designing a 3-story building with compact massing and a smaller footprint,” said Vallone, a licensed architect and developer, and member of Westport’s Public Site & Building Commission.
One version of architect Joseph Vallone’s plan …
Vallone’s idea was met with criticism from committee members. They said that a 3-story proposal violated previously stated Board of Education specifications.
Vallone replied: “Let’s not forget that both Kings Highway [Elementary School] and Greens Farms [Elementary School] are 3 stories.”
… and another.
Following Vallone’s proposal, Jennifer Fava — director of Westport’s Parks & Recreation Department — presented her report on usage of the athletic fields on Long Lots property.
The report revealed that over 11,000 participants utilize these fields annually, excluding physical education classes, adult leagues, and camp rentals. The report said there are 108 participants of the Westport Community Gardens. (Click here for a full report.)
While Fava’s report proposed possible alternative locations for a baseball field, including Winslow Park and Lillian Wadsworth Arboretum, these options pose “challenges” for fields requiring an abundance of space and specific topography, LLSBC member Don O’Day noted.
Rick Koczera then provides estimates from Newfield Construction. Building Plans A and B — involving renovations and extensions — were the most expensive, totaling around $107.5 million and $105.7 million, respectively.
Plan E — calling for the relocation of the gardens — is the least expensive, with an estimated cost of $91.5 million.
Plan C-ALT — the only reconstruction plan retaining the garden’s current site (potentially in exchange of a baseball field) — was slightly more expensive, projected at around $94.3 million.
Cost estimates were projected on a screen at last night’s meeting. (Click on or hover over to enlarge)
The renovation plans take longer to finish, Koczera added, nd will require 29 to 30 months of construction before the school can operate. The reconstruction plans allow students to return to school 18 months after construction begins.
The meeting in Town Hall Rooms 201/201A concluded with public commentary from neighbors and gardeners alike, voicing fears for sustainability of the property.
“Our biggest concern pertains to the demolition of the gardens in lieu of a ball field,” Sloan Sehr said.
“As all of us who live on Bauer [Place] know, there are already a myriad of different drainage and flooding issues, and the removal of these community gardens is going to directly jeopardize the sanctity of our homes.
“When you don’t have all the plants, the trees to absorb all this water, what recourse do we have as residents when our basements are flooded?”
The small Town Hall meeting room was filled last night. Some attendees stood in the hall. (Photo/Karen Mather)
The committee intends to vote on which proposal to recommend to First Selectwoman Jen Tooker at next week’s meeting.
Advocates for the preservation of the garden are wary of a rushed decision.
“I am calling on the First Selectwoman to delay [her recommendation],” Sal Liccione, a Representative Town Meeting member, said, “so we can have a community meeting, ASAP, to discuss all of our options, including Mr. Vallone’s plan.”
(“06880” provides hyper-local journalism every day. Please click here to support our work. Thank you!)
One very, very important clarification; the solution I presented was prepared using the massing previously presented by the architects retained by the town to provide the feasibility study, which is a two story building, not a three story building. We simply cut and pasted their building footprint and proposed two alternative locations for placement of the new 90′ baseball diamond and the parking lot.
Point being, we believe the town can construct their two story school, maintain the gardens and construct a new 90′ baseball diamond on this site.
However, I am advocating for a three story structure that would minimize the amount of exterior wall and roof surface thereby creating a more energy efficient school building. Most importantly, a more compact building massing would reduce the long term operating expenses paid for by the tax payers. Tax payers will be paying to heat and cool this new structure, 24/7, forever.
Reducing their proposed 80,000 SF footprint to a 65,000-70,000 SF footprint would provide additional open space for increased recreation space and parking. Rooms such as auditoriums, gymnasiums etc., can be partially buried into the natural earth berm, thereby reducing their exposed wall surface area.
Finally, while this is deemed a “feasibility study”, its work product is extremely malleable. I sincerely hope this major capital expenditure does not become a missed opportunity.
I see no reason why a Town like Westport would not champion the design and construction a super energy efficient, Net Zero (or as close to it as possible) state of the art elementary school building. I see no reason why this proposed building could not become the benchmark for all new school projects in Fairfield County. Westport is a community filled with its fair share sophisticated people who are both conscious and concerned about our climate issues. Let’s not miss an opportunity.
Working with the site’s natural topography, constructing a split level design solution with access to the first level from the western field, access to the second level from the eastern field (the existing baseball field) with a third level only one story above the eastern portion of the site, appears to be the solution worth the most serious investigation.
The old Saugatuck School on Bridge St. and the current Town Hall both began life as multi story elementary schools as well. I’m surprised that this wasn’t an option from the get go.
I fully support this approach and would like to see more options evaluated for design feasibility.
I will be joining the RTM in November as I am running unopposed in my district.
The criticism that a “3-story proposal violated previously stated Board of Education specifications” means that specification should be re-visited and debated.
I would further amend Mr. Vallone’s proposal with a two story parking structure directly adjacent to the road which would reduce the loss of space to parking/access road by 60%.
This is a 100+ year decision. There is time to explore a wider and more creatives set of options.
I agree with the multi-story proposal having wondered about that myself before there was any talk of that option. Also the split level design makes efficient use of the topography. There is no reason that an elementary school should be one level, in fact there are good fitness reasons in addition to the eco quality that a multilevel building would provide. It sounds like the design specs were deficient and this “new wrinkle” is incentive to revisit the specs while discussion is ongoing.
Thank you, Mr. Vallone, for preparing these well-considered, alternative plans. Your proposed options offer numerous benefits and would be a “win” for the students, neighbors, gardeners, sports families, and tax payers. These designs deserve to be evaluated and estimated, alongside the options developed by the Building Committee. But will the Town bodies even entertain these ideas??
Renovate the existing structure. Cheaper, faster, maintains all the footprints being debated-obviously reduced use during construction. Why are Westporters ignoring the new/renovate decision? Massive $ decision yet instead, all the energy placed on garden v baseball. No disrespect to either of those causes, but the headline here is the school. If the town decides on building a new school, there should be a related closure discussion since it’d be an opportune time to consolidate 5 into 4 elementary schools and save some operating expense over time. Can’t do everything. Budgets can’t continue to grow without a ceiling.
The baseball field was on this property because Long Lots used to be a middle school. This particularly unenlightened group was asked to come up with a plan for an elementary school with elementary school requirements. The board of Ed did not specify that a baseball field needed to be part of the plan for a new school. However we all understand that removing the baseball field is also a town issue. This group should stick with what they were asked to do and at the same time our Selectwoman should form a separate group (and possibly bring in expert outside consultants) to identify a place in the town for the baseball field where it makes sense.
Precisely!
Also, thank you to Joseph Vallone for his time and work in showing that alternative solutions are possible if one chooses to look for them.
Chris Grimm
I would like to add a couple of clarifying points and questions:
The gardens do not have 108 participants, that would be 108 different “fields” if you will. (I think the actual number is a bit higher.) Each “field” has several players and all are played on at various times of the day during prep, planting, growing, harvesting, winterizing seasons. We also have a bocce court with an annual tournament. Shouldn’t that be included also? What is also missing is the gap analysis of all outreach programs the gardens serve. It is unfortunate the blind eye turned towards the community at large.
As a tax payer and because this project is being positioned by the LLSBC as a cost determination, what is the cost of options C&D without placing the WCG Mem Ball Filed on the garden? This project is about building a state-of-the-art school that everyone supports. In the spirit of transparency, I am requesting that number broken out.
Lastly, why was the upfront determination made that Long Lots El should remain open during construction? Instead of spending extra money on the cost to renovate, which had previously been scoped as nonviable, why was this option not replaced with building new on the current Long Lots El footprint? As a parent and given our current climate about school safety, this is going to be a logistics nightmare. Why not redistrict the schools, and temporarily move kids to the remaining elementary schools? I would think we could save on buses and costs associated with running a separate school. Teachers/Staff could be assigned to the other schools to support the temporary shift. For kids moving up to middle school, this is a great opportunity for integrating with their new classmates. I realize the hardship of this- but also think of the construction zone (and safety concerns) families will have to live through for 1.5-2 years driving kids to/from school and of the distractions of having to attend school during a massive construction project- not ideal for children to endure for 1-2 years of the elementary eduction. I encourage families to go visit the other schools and envision the difference.
The absence of leadership is so, so evident. I expect to address that today.
If only there was only a town body that citizens, say 20 of them, could ask to hold a discussion on this matter. If only…..
Thanks to Joseph Vallone for presenting this alternative. Now is the time to aggressively consider multi-story schools, parking, etc. As mentioned above “This is a 100+ year decision.” Doing this now will allow for future student growth.
The idea of thoughtfully designed multi-level parking is also a likely solution to the parking vs. riverfront walk debates as well.
I’ve been to most of the building commission meetings and unfortunately the commission is “tone deaf”. They could care less about saving the gardens or entertaining new ideas. Ditto for Parks and Rec. Truly unfortunate and disheartening.
So 11,000 folks use “the fields” at Long Lots. Hmmm. That wasn’t the question was it? The only field that matters to the discussion is the Babe Ruth ball field for middle schoolers and high school kids, not elementary kids. Rumor has it that Babe Ruth field at Long Lots doesn’t get much use. If the Town still wants four Babe Ruth fields, why does one have to be at an elementary school? Asking for a friend….
I couldn’t agree more wholeheartedly Joseph – Once again Parks and Rec have shown themselves to be disingenuous and self-serving.
What is wanted is a report that shows the LLS baseball field usage only on a daily basis and over the past few years (excluding the Covid era for reasons that are obvious.) It should show which particular teams used it on what day and for how long. I can’t fathom why the LLSBC think that they should make a decision on all this, and in such a rush, without that data. Well actually, perhaps I can.
This the problem with unelected Commissions and Committees that are entirely unaccountable to the public and are either unable or unwilling to produce the data because they have “air cover” from the people that appointed them. PRC positions in Westport should be elected positions not appointed ones.
So either they are running these big budgets funded by our taxpayer dollars in the dark (newsflash – upgrade your systems!)
or they just don’t care what the public in Westport think so they obfuscate and deflect from the real question before them.
I for one am not alright with that.
Joseph – at the prior, ‘heated’ Building Committee meeting, I asked the Chairman how many times last year were baseball games played precisely on this field in question. He didn’t know. And I asked if other fields were available at those times. No knowledge. As a credit analyst right out of college, I would have been laughed out of Credit Committee without such pertinent information.
Isn’t this the vital knowledge the Committee needs to justify bulldozing a National award winning, ONE and only, twenty-year old, irreplaceable Garden?
And even if there were REALLY a lot of games played (neighbors say not) – WHY is the Garden the default location? As Toni Simonetti said during the meeting – it’s just coincidental that the Garden and this baseball field are in proximity.
Alternate sites and creative ideas in addition to Joseph Vallone’s solution appear to be batted down quickly as a nuisance and not possible. And YET, the Committee wants us to trust that their engineers will solve the difficult, challenging issue of increased flooding in the neighborhood without the Garden acting as a sponge. Give me a break.
Too bad the First Selectwoman did not include stakeholders to allow for a diversity of viewpoints. Now we have a Building Committee with only one vision which refuses to budge despite great protest from those affected most and a plethora of knowledge on the benefits of the Garden and its inability to be relocated.
Is it stubbornness, pride, or the desire to just be done with it all?
And once again, why are we going beyond the BOE specs for a new/refurbished school and playgrounds?
Just another follow up to set the record straight;
We are receiving feedback that the baseball field we incorporated into the site plan was 100′ short. This is completely false, the plan illustrates the standard field dimensions of 320′ from home plate down the left field line and 400′ from home plate to dead center field.
There are also rumors stating that to regrade for the location of the new field, it will cost $2.7M. This is also patently untrue. The second sketch locates the field in the parking lot which is almost dead level. The first design solution is in the location of the existing school structure which once demolished, the foundations will need to be removed and the site will need to back filled with soil compacted in lifts for stability, whether to be used for a ball field or a parking lot.
We are architects and engineers, this is sorta our thing.
The “feedback received” and “rumors” were based upon a quick look at the schematic given to the building committee for the first time last night at 6:00. At 8:30am today I had a cup of coffee with one of the building committee members in an effort to build better lines of communication between garden members and the town. I am a gardener and I was the one who heard the “feedback” first hand. I mentioned this member’s initial thoughts to someone who mentioned it to someone else, etc. and in the blink of an eye, I read this post not even 11 hours after the committee received the schematic and 6 hours after the cup of coffee was had.
I take full responsibility for this “situation” of creating controversy by repeating an off the cuff comment made over a cup of coffee before this person had the chance to look at the schematic for more than a few minutes this morning and before having the chance to talk with other building committee members about this alternative in more detail.
A final recommendation from the committee is not forthcoming until next week and my guess is the committee will take a more detailed look at the plan after they have more than 12 hours (including when they were sleeping last night) to look at it. It’s unfortunate that a person to person text, email or phone conversation wasn’t used to closed the loop versus social media.
The parks and Rec is not taking into consideration all the insects that pollinate the gardens and all the birds that take advantage of the insect larvae. It take between 6000 to 9000 larvae to rear a clutch of chickadees (Doug Tallamy). Insects are the linchpin between the plant world and animal protein so basically the base of OUR food pyramid. Insects and birds are in decline. A study published in Science estimates that we loose 9% old insect population per decades! It boggles the mind that we keep repeating the same mistakes and that we take our natural world for granted. It is not, and it is time to take that into consideration. We are the stewards of our land and as important as school education is, we owe it to our children to model healthy and respectful behavior to preserve our natural world. One cannot replace a 100 year old tree or an ecosystem developed over 20 years in a week! Westport trees are dying by a thousand cuts, one only needs to look at any building site. It is high time for our leaders to lead the way and model that construction of any public space needs not annihilating our natural resources.
In our complex world of environmental change, political divisiveness, social unrest, global tensions and economic uncertainty… we as individuals can sometimes feel helpless. What can we do to make things better? It all seems so out of reach.
In this small town of Westport, CT a small group of people are taking one small step .. something that is actually within our span of control.. to make the world a better place.
It may be a grain of sand on the beach, but still it is an accomplishment. Building a garden and native habitat is one small step for man, one great step for mankind.
No, it‘s not a moon walk. And there aren’t many things we can do as individuals to make a change for the greater good. But, planting seeds for the future, literally, just might be one of them.
Save the gardens.
Amen Toni. Kofi Annan and Pope Francis also defended our beautiful nature too many take for granted:
Let us be good stewards of the Earth we inherited. All of us have to share the Earth’s fragile ecosystems and precious resources, and each of us has a role to play in preserving them. If we are go to go on living together on this earth, we must all be responsible for it. (Kofi Annan)
We are stewards, not masters of our Earth. each of us has a personal responsibility to care for the precious gift of God’s creation. (Pope Francis)
With appreciation for all the time and effort the Building Committee has put in to date, I agree with so much of what has been said here. In particular, it seems that there is information that should have been considered. If the Building Committee’s mandate was to simply recommend a choice for the new school building, then perhaps the other elements should be discussed in a separate process by the various stakeholders once the building is decided on. However, if the Committee’s charge was to consider what happens to the remainder of the property (this is not totally clear), then it seems like there should have been more information provided to them at an earlier stage from Parks and Rec, Conservation, P & Z, etc. I also think the numbers of people in the community that benefit from the Gardens is not just the gardeners but way more than that. Nor should we view the number of people who use the baseball field as the total number of people that use all our fields. As James Mather said, “It should show which particular teams used it on what day and for how long.”
Given that I believe this is the largest expenditure by the Town since the Staples/Bedford project and it impacts so many people, I would like to see at least one meeting in a larger space, like the auditorium, so that people can hear the details about the recommendations and can ask questions or give their thoughts. Unfortunately it is quite late in the process for that to happen but if there was at least one such meeting, I think it would be beneficial to all sides, including the Building Committee.
It is not too late to gather and scrutinize all relevant data. It is not too late to revise the scope of a project. It is not too late to ensure all facts are known before embarking on such a big project. It is not too late to entertain all creative options (thank you, @JoeVallone and many others). It is not too late to fully understand all ramifications, including existing and potential water displacement (thank you, @PeterSwift), especially given this weekend’s rainfall and flooding in NYC!
While scope change is an enormous pain, especially given the time individuals have invested thus far, taking a step back, collecting all pertinent data, reevaluating directives, and assessing adding team members seems to be the prudent course.
I’ve spent numerous hours with my kids throwing batting practice, hitting ground balls and playing catch on the Long Lots baseball field so that field is very dear to my heart & has great memories. But not once when I went there was the field occupied. The 11,000 kids using the fields is just a diversionary tactic so not to focus on the specific usage of the long lots baseball field. Also, to say Westport Baseball & Softball uses the field is another diversionary tactic since Softball has never been played on that field. Another diversionary tactic is to say that Westport Baseball doesn’t know how many kids will be playing from year to year. They might not know the exact amount from year to year, but they certainly know that participation in baseball in this town has spiraled downward over the last 10 years & for numerous reasons is very unlikely to reverse itself. Now for the specifics pertaining to usage of the Long Lots baseball field, in the 7 months (April 1- October 31) there were 6 days where games were scheduled on that field & on every occasion one and most likely more than one of the other 3 fields (Staples, Wakeman & Doubleday) were available. Another point not previously mentioned is that in each instance there was a game scheduled @ Long Lots it was against an out-of-town opponent who has their own fields to host the game. This means the ability to play a home game is a convenience for the players & parents & not out of necessity to avoid the game not being scheduled. Less home games don’t equate to less games played for the kids it’s just less games played in Westport.