Design team narrows Carver Gym renovation options; seating, parking and code drive costs

Designers and engineers updated the Recreation Committee on April 7, 2025, about a renovation scheme for Carver Gym, focusing discussion on seating capacity, required parking and how building code and occupancy calculations affect project cost and layout.

Architectural staff reported existing bleacher seating converts to an estimated capacity of about 1,124 people when calculated at 18 inches of linear seating, and that by removing a couple of rows the design reduces that figure to roughly 936. Project engineer Matthew Inman said parking estimates tied to seating produce widely varying requirements depending on the method used: a linear-foot/seat method produced a calculation of roughly 168 required spaces in one scenario, while an alternative, reduced-scope plan showed about 68 spaces paved with additional grass overflow possible for larger events.

“There’s really nothing in our code that says that,” Inman said when commissioners questioned which parking metric applies; he said the team had reviewed multiple references and requested direction from the commission about how much paved parking to provide versus overflow grass lots or on-street parking on Mercer Avenue.

Architectural staff proposed several cost- and program-control options to reduce required parking and stormwater impacts: remove additional rows of bleachers (to lower assumed occupancy), retain fewer permanent seats, leave some overflow parking as grass (with bumper blocks), or pursue a code variance. Commissioners and staff discussed whether to reconfigure restroom access and whether to eliminate a proposed rear addition by moving restrooms into the main lobby to reduce plumbing counts tied to higher occupant loads.

Project manager Sonya told the committee the revised, smaller building plan is approximately 8,228 square feet and that the current construction-cost estimate stands at about $3.6 million with a total project estimate just over $4.4 million. Commissioners discussed prior funding amounts: one commissioner said $3.8 million had been approved previously and asked whether the new schematic could be reduced to fit that number. Staff said they would refine seating and parking scenarios and return with options that balance occupancy, cost and preservation of the gym’s character.

Ending: The design team was asked to return with options that reduce seating/occupancy to lower parking demand (targets discussed included reducing capacity toward roughly 300–400 seats from the current 900+ model), to present hybrid paved/grass overflow parking options and to supply a more detailed cost-magnitude for the commission’s next meeting.