Building committee selects new-construction option (A4.4) as preferred schematic for Salem High School

The Salem High School Building Committee voted to advance Option A4.4 — a full new-construction scheme — as the preferred schematic option for the New Salem High School project.

Committee members approved the recommendation during the committee's regular meeting after a presentation from the design team and project staff. The motion to advance Option A4.4 passed by unanimous recorded vote of 12 yes, 0 no.

The preferred-option vote followed a multi-part presentation by project staff and the Perkins and Will design team, who reviewed community engagement, program adjacencies and comparative analyses of cost, schedule and carbon. "We are where the May 8 line where we're gonna take you'll be asked to take a vote on the preferred option," project staff member Margaret said while reviewing the milestone schedule. Brooke of Perkins and Will presented the evaluation matrix and community feedback, and Patrick of the design team walked through the four scheme options, including the code-upgrade, renovation/addition and the new-construction (A4.4) wrap scheme.

Why it matters: the preferred schematic choice frames the next formal submittal to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) and sets the scope that will go into the Preferred Schematic Report (PSR). Committee members were told the PSR submission authorization is expected to be requested at a later meeting; staff said the committee will be asked on June 18 to authorize PSR submission and related votes.

Key facts presented - Community engagement: Design staff said three community meetings and educator workshops produced strong interest in a new building. "There was pretty much a unanimous interest in new construction," Brooke said. - Program and adjacencies: Designers showed scale bubble diagrams of the gym (about 18,000 sq ft), auditorium and CTE (career and technical education) spaces, and noted challenges fitting some large CTE programs on the first floor. The team said they will continue the adjacency exercise with Salem High instructional staff. - Carbon: The design team presented life-cycle global warming potential estimates (measured in kg CO2-equivalent). Staff warned that comparisons for renovation options carry additional embodied-carbon penalties related to repeated renovation and temporary classroom use. The presentation noted the existing school's operational CO2-equivalent figure provided by the district was around 82,000,000 kg CO2-eq for current operations. - Cost and schedule: The estimator provided comparative totals using the MSBA format. Staff summarized the notional project-cost totals presented: new construction approximately $455,000,000; a substantial renovation option about $353,000,000. Estimated durations shown to the committee were: code upgrade ~36 months, renovation ~48 months, addition/renovation ~36 months and new construction ~30 months. Presenters said these are early estimates and will be refined in subsequent estimating rounds.

Discussion and concerns Committee members asked about disruptions from renovation phasing, contingencies for tariffs and material availability, and the longevity of systems under a code-only approach. Jenna, a teacher on the committee, described past renovation impacts on the school: "It was very chaotic. It was very, overwhelming" and urged the committee to weigh disruption to teaching and learning when considering renovation scenarios. Designers and staff responded that phasing strategies and contractor input on constructability will be refined if other options remain under consideration, and that the design team expects to present a more detailed cost estimate on the preferred option in late June.

Vote and next steps The committee adopted Option A4.4 (new construction) as the preferred schematic option by roll-call vote (12 yes, 0 no). Staff said the next steps include continuing schematic design, producing a more detailed estimate for the preferred option in late June, and the PSR submittal process with the MSBA—culminating in a facilities-assessment subcommittee meeting with the MSBA in late July.

Ending Designers and staff asked committee members to continue engagement with upcoming site and program decisions; the committee scheduled follow-up meetings in late May and June to refine the preferred schematic and related budget and schedule details. The design team encouraged additional teacher and user group review of the program adjacency diagrams during the schematic phase.