Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bloom Vs Weave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reporters favor ‘Bloom’ new-construction for Lexington high school amid concerns about phased renovation and code triggers
Summary
During the retreat, multiple group reporters and committee chairs said new-construction (Bloom) tends to be financially and operationally preferable to in-place renovation (weave), citing student-disruption risks, temporary modular impacts and a code-trigger risk that could require extensive upgrades to existing buildings.
Multiple report-outs at the Lexington joint retreat emphasized a recurring conclusion: from a financial and student-experience perspective, building new on an alternate site (the “Bloom” option) appeared to offer advantages over renovating in place (the “weave” option).
Reporters across groups flagged several consistent concerns about the weave approach: construction phasing would require temporary systems and modular spaces that generate additional intermediate environmental impacts; older building geometries (columns, bay depths, ceiling heights) complicate retrofit designs; and keeping students in the building during phased work increases noise, vibration and program disruption.
Financial analyses presented in station discussions suggested that the per-square-foot cost differences and the potential for cost reductions between schematic design and design development can vary widely by project and district. One group reporter cited an Arlington comparison that showed a notable per-square-foot variance, and several participants noted that value engineering after MSBA agreement can bring costs down but cannot alter the educational program once the MSBA signs off.
A central technical constraint raised at the meeting also weighs on the feasibility of phased work: Claire, a meeting participant, emphasized that “once we start meaningfully altering the envelope of any of our buildings we trigger code and every other aspect of the building has to be brought up to code,” adding that such triggers could require very large additional investments and erode phased-savings assumptions. That code-trigger concern was repeatedly referenced in group assessments of the weave option.
Proponents of Bloom argued it limits student disruption and consolidates construction in a way that may be more controllable and predictable financially; proponents of weave said phased approaches can be designed to reduce cost and keep some program continuity but acknowledged that many technical questions remain unanswered. Several reporters said the Bloom option, in the groups’ view, better protects the educational experience for students during construction.
The discussion did not produce a formal committee vote or final design decision. Organizers asked reporters to submit written notes for the minutes and encouraged continued committee feedback ahead of an internal Nov. 12 deadline that aligns with the MSBA submission schedule.
