Brookfield architects present feasibility study for proposed community center; Kiwanis favored in early survey

Williams Architects presented the Village of Brookfield with preliminary findings of a feasibility study for a proposed community/recreation center, and asked the Village Board to indicate a preferred site or building concept so the consultants can complete a business pro forma and operating-cost analysis.

The study, led by Andy Dogen of Williams Architects, described a 33,000-square-foot “core program” of spaces drawn from community feedback and a statistically valid survey, two building configurations (Option A: a shorter two-story scheme; Option B: a taller scheme with integrated parking), and two candidate locations: Kiwanis Park and Ellerth Park. Early public input and a live open-house polling showed stronger support for Kiwanis Park and for the Option B massing.

The study matters because it frames next steps: the consultant team will develop a pro forma estimating operating expenses and potential revenue, refine cost ranges for the preferred option, and return to the board with more detailed financial and siting analysis.

Williams Architects’ Andy Dogen emphasized the scope of the engagement: “the purpose of this study is, merely to investigate the feasibility and gauge community interest, in such a facility.” Dogen and the team said the study is rooted in financial feasibility and community interest, not simply architectural concepts.

Consultants told the board that survey results showed strong demand for health-and-fitness spaces, walking and jogging track, gym courts and multipurpose program rooms. Dogen said survey responses were “nearly identical” between a statistically valid sample and an open online survey, with roughly two-thirds of open-survey respondents indicating a need for additional recreation facilities and 37% reporting dissatisfaction with current recreation offerings.

Two building options were shown. Option A is a lower two-story arrangement with the gym at ground level and a mezzanine track; Option B stacks the gym at an upper level over grade-level parking, yields a more dynamic set of interior volumes and a larger track that partly leaves the gym footprint. Kim of Williams Architects said Option A’s typical gym height would be about 32 feet; Option B’s track roof would reach about 42 feet and the gym volume could reach roughly 52 feet.

Site analysis by Hitchcock Design focused on two park locations. At Ellerth Park the consultants identified three possible footprints (including a site near the fire station that drew strong open-house support) and noted constraints including recent OSLAD grant-funded improvements and a 500-year floodplain. At Kiwanis Park the consultants said the site has a 100-year floodplain and grant-funded amenities that would limit some placements; consultants also flagged PACE bus operations and Metra-related parking demands as complicating factors. The team said Kiwanis’s proximity to Grand Avenue could yield more crossover with local businesses.

Public and board reaction was mixed but leaned toward Option B at Kiwanis Park. Board members cited concerns about parking congestion at Kiwanis during events and the effect of a taller building on park character; several trustees expressed preference for siting the building at Ellerth Park near the fire station to preserve other park green space and reduce impacts on neighboring houses.

The consultants reiterated next steps: narrow the preferred concept and site (the board may identify one option or two alternatives), complete a pro forma with revenue and operating-cost assumptions, and return with cost ranges and recommendations at the board’s next regular meetings. Dogen said the pro forma will estimate operating expenses and potential revenue and show likely cost-recovery percentages under different programming scenarios.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the meeting. Instead staff and consultants asked the board for guidance on whether to proceed with a preferred building option and site for the pro forma. Village staff said they could postpone seeking a board consensus for up to two weeks to allow more community input; consultants said delaying by one meeting could shift the timeline for the next presentation but would not halt the overall feasibility process.

Clarifying details noted during the presentation included: - Program size: consultants described a “core program” of roughly 33,000 square feet based on community feedback and facility standards. - Building heights: Option A gym/mezzanine ~32 feet total; Option B track roof ~42 feet and a possible gym peak near ~52 feet. - Parking: Option B was presented as a way to add grade-level parking within the building footprint; consultants estimated roughly 25–30 covered parking spaces could fit in the covered area but said they have not completed a detailed parking-space analysis because it depends on the final site layout. - Survey results: consultants reported that about two-thirds of respondents to the open survey indicated a need for more recreation space; 69% of open-house respondents favored Kiwanis Park in that poll, 23% favored Ellerth, and 27% said they wanted more information on price. - Funding and scope: the consultants and staff said combining community center space with additional municipal uses (village hall and police) would substantially increase square footage and costs and, as discussed in the meeting, would exceed the village’s current bonding capacity; the board and consultants therefore focused this feasibility study on a community/recreation center only.

The presentation, open-house materials and the online survey will be posted on the village website for additional public comment. Consultants said they aim to return with a pro forma and refined cost ranges at the board’s upcoming meetings once the board provides direction on preferred options.