Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Designer Presentation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flansburg Architects lays out MSBA process and design options for Peaslee School
Summary
Designer team presented the MSBA project phases (PDP, PSR, schematic), multiple renovation and new-build concepts, site constraints and outreach plans; they recommended robust community forums and described cost-control strategies.
Get email alerts on the Designer Presentation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flansburg Architects presented a condensed plan for the Peaslee School project on Dec. 2, walking the Peaslee Building Committee through the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) process and early design options.
Kent Kovacs, who identified himself as a principal, said the project is currently in the preliminary design program (PDP) phase, which focuses on collecting existing-condition data and developing test-fit options. "We want to understand your existing school. We want to understand if it's conducive for renovation or new construction," Kovacs said, describing how the PDP feeds into a preferred schematic report (PSR) and then schematic design, when costs are finalized and submitted to the MSBA for grant consideration.
Project architect Jennifer described specific concepts the team studied: two renovation options that retain portions of the existing building (one with a front addition and one with a rear addition joined by a new media entry) and two new-build layouts that respond to steep slopes and wetlands on the site. One scenario preserves a neighborhood-scale school with capacity for about 310 students; other concepts consider grade-span consolidation.
Vince, the Flansburg project manager, summarized site constraints (wetlands, steep slopes, original mechanical systems from the 1960s) and said the team will perform soil borings, structural investigations, and MEP analyses to determine which elements can be salvaged and which will need replacement. Kovacs discussed cost-control measures—program consolidation, reduced glazing to save on cladding costs and options to reduce building footprint—and described delivery-method choices (design-bid-build versus CM-at-risk/Chapter 149A) to be evaluated in schematic design.
Kovacs emphasized outreach: multiple community forums, focus groups, targeted outreach to groups like the senior center and PTO, filmed updates, and student engagement to build consensus before the local funding vote. "This is a community project. We want a school that reflects your values," he said.
Committee members asked for a copy of the presentation and whether consolidation scenarios had been included; Kovacs replied the team had tested the largest scenarios and can adapt concepts for consolidation or renovation as needed.
Next steps: the design team will continue PDP data collection, coordinate community outreach, and prepare the PSR options for committee and community review in the months ahead.

