SLIDE 1
January 18, 2018
Site Test Fits #3
E lb ridg e Ge rry Building Co mmitte e Me e ting
Raymond Design Associates
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Site Test Fits #3 January 18, 2018 Raymond Design Associates oje - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Site Test Fits #3 January 18, 2018 Raymond Design Associates oje - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
E lb ridg e Ge rry Building Co mmitte e Me e ting Site Test Fits #3 January 18, 2018 Raymond Design Associates oje ct r y P r Ge r Ma rb le he a d Site s PDP Optio ns Ove rvie w Ge r r y P r oje ct PDP Optio ns Ove rvie w se
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
PDP Optio ns Ove rvie w
SLIDE 4
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
PDP Optio ns Ove rvie w – se e ha ndo ut
SLIDE 5
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Optio n 160C – 2 Sto ry (+ gym) Add/ Re no
Preserves 1948 Coffin Building’s Scale w/ 2‐Story Addition Abutting Susan Rd (3) Staff Parking On Street More Than Adequate Stacking Space Exceeds Recommended Play Areas 12.6k sf Playfield Possible Easy 4‐CR Expansion + 6‐CR Rooftop Expansion
$32.8m / $26.7m
SLIDE 6
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Optio n 160F – Ne w ‘S
tagge re d 2 S to ry’
Co ffin
2‐Story Front / 2‐Story Rear (1) Staff Parking On Street More Than Adequate Stacking Space No Retaining Walls More Than Adequate Play Area 18k sf Playing Field Possible 6‐CR Rooftop Expansion Shown
(At‐Grade Expansion is Possible)
2-STORY STAGGERED NEW
$35.1m / $29.2m
SLIDE 7
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Optio n 160J – Re no va te Uppe r Be ll
1‐Story Renovation (No Lower Level CR) Gymatorium/Caf with WARMING Kitchen Half‐Size Gymnasium Dartmouth Street Extension & Ramps (0) Staff Parking On Street More Than Adequate Stacking Space More Than Adequate Play Area Easy 4‐CR Expansion
$‐Not Priced
SLIDE 8
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Optio n 160K – Add/ Re no Uppe r Be ll (# 1 o f
2)
1‐Story Renovation (No Lower Level CR) Gymatorium/Caf with FULL Kitchen Half‐Size Gymnasium Dartmouth Street Extension & Ramps (0) Staff Parking On Street More Than Adequate Stacking Space More Than Adequate Play Area Easy 2‐CR Expansion
$64.1m / $53.1m
SLIDE 9
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Optio n 290B – 3 Sto ry Add/ Re no (# 2 o f 2)
Preserves 1948 Coffin Building’s Scale 2‐Story Front / 3‐Story Rear All Staff + (7) Visitors Parking On‐Site More Than Adequate Stacking Space No Retaining Walls Play Area Short by 6.9k SF 10‐CR Expansion Shown
$‐See 160K
SLIDE 10
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Optio n 450K .1 – 86k SF
Ne w 3 Sto ry (fro nt)
NEW OPTION for 450‐Pupils 3‐Stories Abutting (5) Neighbors All Staff + (1) Visitor Parking On‐Site Short (35) Stacking Spaces (1/2 of Glover’s stacking) Play is Well Short of Recommended (but Same as Glover’s) Easy 6‐CR Future Expansion
$50.0m / $38.4m
SLIDE 11
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Optio n 450G.1 – 86k SF
3 Sto ry Add/ Re no
Dartmouth Rd Connection Remote Play Surfaces More Future Expansion etc etc Elev 60.0 Elev 40.0 REVISED OPTION G for 86k SF 3‐Story Addition + Gut Reconfigure Upper Bell Dartmouth Rd Connection All Staff + (8) Visitors Pkg On‐Site Short (2) More Stacking Spaces 2,700 SF More Play Area Better 10‐CR Expansion
$53.9m / $41.3m
SLIDE 12
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Optio n 450L .1 – 86k SF
Ne w 2 Sto ry Be ll
Dartmouth Rd Connection Remote Play Surfaces More Future Expansion etc etc Elev 55.0 NEW OPTION for 450‐Pupils 2‐Story New School Dartmouth Rd Exit for Stacking All Staff + (31) Visitors Parking On‐Site (all at Lower Bell Entry Level) (12) Stacking Spaces Beyond Need Play Exceeds Recommended (w/ Direct 2nd Flr Connection) Easy 10‐CR Expansion Elev 55.0 Elev 55.0
Elev 57.0
Elev 40.0
$58.0m / $45.8m
SLIDE 13
Optio n 450H.1 – 86k SF
Ne w 3 Sto ry Sc ho o l
REVISED OPTION H for 86k SF 3‐Stories Abutting (6) Neighbors Fader Place Connection Remote Soft Play Area + Field Short (3) Staff Parking Still Short (11) Stacking Spaces 19k sf Shy of Recommended Play (but 6k sf Larger than Glover) Easy Future Expansion (8 CR)
$53.2m / $41.9m
SLIDE 14
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
PSR Pre fe rre d Optio n – 1st De c isio n
#1: 160‐Pupil, 160/290‐Pupil, or 450‐Pupil School?
- a. Educational Program ‐ (450)
- b. Near Term Capital Costs ‐ (160)
- b. Yearly Operational Costs ‐ (450)
- c. Parity / Need for a Future Project ‐ (450) / (160/290)
- d. Neighborhood Schools ‐ (160) / (160/290)
#2: Which Site is Best?
- a. Location / Traffic
- b. Future Expansion / Maximum Pupil Capacity
- c. Parking Capacity
- d. Stacking Capacity
- e. Play Areas
- f. Massing / Neighborhood Impact
- g. Project Cost
SLIDE 15
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
Pre mium Co st fo r “T wo Sc ho o ls”
160/290 160/290 160/290 Option # Option Description Comparative Project Costs Comparative District Share Comparative Project Cost Comparative District Share Comparative District Premium 450 K.1 3‐Story New Coffin $50,026,880 $38,384,313 $64,076,091 $53,094,291 14,709,978 As compared to 450 K.1 450 G.1 3‐Story Bell Add/Reno $53,900,000 $41,300,000 $64,076,091 $53,094,291 11,794,291 As compared to 450 G.1 450 L.1 2‐Story New Bell $58,000,000 $45,800,000 $64,076,091 $53,094,291 7,294,291 As compared to 450 L.1 450 H.1 3‐Story New Bud Orne $53,200,000 $41,900,000 $64,076,091 $53,094,291 11,194,291 As compared to 450 H.1
SLIDE 16
Ge r r y P r
- je ct
PSR Pre fe rre d Optio n – 2nd De c isio n
#1: 160‐Pupil, 160/290‐Pupil, or 450‐Pupil School?
- a. Educational Program ‐ (450)
- b. Near Term Capital Costs ‐ (160)
- b. Yearly Operational Costs ‐ (450)
- c. Parity / Need for a Future Project ‐ (450) / (160/290)
- d. Neighborhood Schools ‐ (160) / (160/290)
#2: Which Sites Are Best?
- a. Location / Traffic
- b. Future Expansion / Maximum Pupil Capacity
- c. Parking Capacity
- d. Stacking Capacity
- e. Play Areas
- f. Massing / Neighborhood Impact
- g. Project Cost
SLIDE 17