Architects show 'new' and 'renovate-as-new' concepts for Wellington K–8 site

Tecton Architects presented two conceptual approaches to consolidating Wellington’s schools into a single Pre‑K–8 campus: a new-build sited to the south of the campus that allows continued occupation during construction, and a "renovate-as-new" option that would demolish part of the existing facility, add a two‑story addition and renovate the remainder.

In the new‑build concept the design team laid out a three‑level plan using the site’s slope: Pre‑K–2 on a lower level, grades 3–5 on a main level and grades 6–8 on an upper level. The architect described circulation and adjacency strategies intended to keep students within one level of core special‑use spaces and recommended secure entry vestibules and stacked, scalable special‑use spaces that can open to one another for events.

"You would be able to provide the building as well as the parking development while the existing building remains in operation," the lead architect said while showing siting diagrams. That approach reduces the need for temporary swing space but requires careful phasing of demolition and site work.

The renovate-as-new plan preserves a large portion of the existing building while adding about 37,200 square feet; the architects said the combined footprint would be roughly 103,000 square feet (existing ~67,597 sf plus the addition). They cautioned that phased renovation is typically longer and can increase escalation: "Renovation could take longer than that," the design team said, estimating multi‑year phasing and possible 30–42 month schedules for complex renovations.

Committee questions centered on play‑field stacking, future expansion, building character and utilities. A member urged designs that match the town’s residential character and avoid a "warehouse" look; architects said pitched roofs and residential‑scale elements could be integrated to provide that aesthetic while accommodating equipment flat roofs where necessary. Members also raised septic and geothermal constraints and asked for overlays showing setback, wetland buffers and future expansion areas.

Why it matters: The design choice affects cost, schedule, educational programming and the town’s ability to achieve state reimbursement. Renovation may preserve existing structure and character but can raise phasing and escalation costs; new construction can be more efficient spatially but requires temporary arrangements for students during construction.

Next steps: The architects and Colliers will produce more refined concepts, show cost ranges and indicate where renovation and new construction diverge in cost and schedule. The committee requested dotted overlays showing potential expansion and geothermal/utility grids, and scheduled follow‑up working‑group meetings to vet layouts and square‑foot estimates.

Ending: The presentation closed with the committee agreeing to refine concepts and gather the additional data necessary to compare construction and renovation options side by side before selecting a project for a grant application or referendum.