Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation And Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants recommend evaluating selective preservation, reuse and habitat restoration on MCI Concord site
Summary
Presenters identified a small set of buildings with reuse potential, recommended assessing salvage of materials and emphasized that the cemetery and river buffers are fixed constraints to any redevelopment scenario.
Consultants presenting on April 3 said some structures on the former MCI Concord site are strong candidates for preservation or adaptive reuse, while other buildings — including fragmented cellblocks — may be difficult to convert.
Architectural presenters pointed to a handful of buildings with open floor plates (administrative buildings, the former gymnasium/school and intake/workshop buildings) as having clearer reuse potential for public or commercial purposes. They also identified a warden’s house and a remaining “white row house” as buildings likely to attract preservation interest. At the same time, consultants cautioned that many cellblock buildings are architecturally fragmented and would present high life‑cycle and mechanical conversion costs.
Consultants said the cemetery on‑site is a fixed feature that will remain. They also flagged environmental and habitat restoration opportunities tied to the nearby pond and river but noted existing state wetland/riverbank buffers restrict building in some areas.
Presenters urged the advisory group to consider salvaging on‑site materials — stone, brick and portions of the wall — for reuse in public spaces or interpretive installations. In discussing preservation priorities, a speaker recommended bringing the question of which buildings have meaning to the public into the workshop process: “it’s hard to predict what buildings will have meaning to people. And so it's worth looking at them and bringing them up through the workshop process.”
The meeting included a question from an advisory member about several buildings shown on the plan as “facilities to remain” near the river; consultants and engineering staff explained those include the wastewater treatment enclosure, a warehouse and an auxiliary building and that the team needs to clarify which of those structures will be functional, reused, or decommissioned.
No preservation decisions were made; consultants listed preservation toggles to test in scenarios: reuse vs. demolition, life‑cycle cost comparisons, and potential temporary or permanent programming for retained structures.
