Consultants say Medford High has structural, accessibility and systems deficiencies; MSBA process moves forward
Loading...
Summary
SMMA and engineering consultants reported multiple deficiencies at Medford High — including roof ponding and pool membrane delamination, structural weaknesses, accessibility noncompliance, outdated HVAC and electrical systems — and the Building Committee set a schedule of advisory meetings and a planned PDP submission to the MSBA in late February.
SMMA architects and engineers told the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee on Dec. 22 that Medford High School shows widespread building‑envelope deterioration, structural vulnerabilities, accessibility shortfalls and mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems that are past expected service life.
The consultants presented photographs and field observations and said many exterior elements date to the original 1970 construction. The architecture team reported failing windows and translucent pool/gym panels, exterior walls lacking thermal insulation, significant roof ponding and ongoing leaks. The pool roof membrane has delaminated in places and project staff installed mechanical fasteners on the deck as an emergency measure, the team said.
Structural engineer Ellen Swanson said the project team has very limited original structural drawings (only Wing B were available) and must extrapolate conditions for other wings. She flagged that the building lacks a conventional lateral force‑resisting system, that historical drawings did not document seismic or modern wind design, and that expansion joints and many details would not meet current code. Swanson pointed to exposed rebar and spalling at the pool deck and a settled slab gap in Wing C as specific concerns.
The accessibility review found numerous noncompliant conditions: exterior accessible parking slopes and signage do not meet standards, several routes include stairs or incorrect slopes, many interior doors are too narrow or use knob hardware, classroom sinks lack wheelchair knee clearance, toilet rooms do not provide required turning space, and the auditorium lacks sufficient wheelchair locations and an assistive listening system.
Mechanical engineer Emily Ehlers summarized HVAC issues: the school relies on a hydronic system with pneumatic controls, limited centralized cooling and many original pieces of equipment; unit ventilators deliver uneven ventilation and are noisy. Ehlers concluded that most major equipment is past its operable lifespan and will not meet current code requirements.
Plumbing and fire‑protection consultants reported corroded cast‑iron piping, original copper piping with suspect joints, missing backflow prevention on the main water supply, kitchen code deficiencies (need for CO detectors and automatic gas shutdown), and that the building is largely unsprinkled except where recent renovations occurred.
Electrical consultant Andrew Barrows said electrical substations and distribution panels are largely beyond useful life, emergency generators are nonfunctional, the fire alarm system lacks voice evacuation, and AV/telecom infrastructure and Wi‑Fi capacity are inadequate for modern instructional needs.
On the site, civil engineer Laura Swan described the property’s history as a former quarry/dump area and said the campus is mostly paved (over 50% impermeable), stormwater is not currently treated for pollutants, slopes show erosion, and the existing single two‑way driveway off Winthrop Street creates bottleneck concerns. She noted 476 parking spaces, which appear underutilized.
Educational planner Rosemary Park reviewed the draft space summary and said the team is aligning district‑specific program needs with MSBA/DESE templates. The consultants said MSBA’s baseline auditorium size is 750 seats but that Medford is planning for about 1,000 seats; they also noted MSBA requires sizing for three lunch seatings and that Chapter 74 CTE program needs will substantially increase CTE area allocations. The team used a working enrollment of 1,395 students and reported a grossing factor of about 1.54 pending final point‑cloud verification in January.
Project manager Helen Fantini and SMMA said advisory team listening sessions were held Dec. 16 and 18, with followups scheduled for Jan. 13 and Jan. 15 and a committee meeting Jan. 14. The team previewed an alternatives review (addition/renovation/code upgrade/new build), two independent cost estimators to price options, PDP cost estimates due in early February, and an expected Preliminary Design Program (PDP) submission to MSBA around Feb. 23 (the transcript phrase was “20 third”).
The committee did not take a policy decision on preferred alternatives at the Dec. 22 meeting; consultants said the work will continue and that the team will present refined alternatives, cost reconciliations and supporting data before the PDP submission.
