Considerations re: The question…
Whether to (1) build Anew or (2) Renovate and Build Addition(s).
At the dedication ceremony, held on the 172nd anniversary of President George Washington’s Birthday, February 22, 1904, Frank Smith of the Building Committee described the beauty of the new Oakdale School building.
The beauty of this building is found in its simplicity and compactness, ample for every want, yet with no waste space in room or corridor to add to the cost of construction, and expense in care and heating. It amply meets [Ralph Waldo] Emerson’s definition of beauty when he says: “That is beautiful which is simple, and has no superfluous parts.”
Each of the ten classrooms were designed to seat forty-two pupils, “all that any teacher can properly instruct,” according to Smith at the time, “although in an emergency, a larger number can be comfortably seated.”
Smith expressed his appreciation for the architects, Messrs Hartwell, Richardson and Driver who, because of their large experience in the building of schoolhouses, were able to tell the building committee to a near approximation, what any given piece of work would cost. “In no instance,” Smith recalled, had “the completed work cost more than their estimate.”
Smith’s remarks that day were not only about the physical properties of the building that represented a new era in the construction of schoolhouses in Dedham. He evoked the words of Horace Mann, The Father of American Education and, according to Smith, a twelve-year member of the Dedham School Committee, to suggest just how important the school is to the health of the United States:
Whatever you wish to appear in the life of a nation, you must first introduce into the schools.
Smith also expressed another truth – one that is all the more urgent to Dedham now, on the eve of determining the ancient school’s fate – 121 years after the school’s dedication.
I know of no institution which perpetuates more tender memories than the school association, especially when it is permitted to keep alive, through loving reminiscences, the spirit of the school, by assembling generation after generation in the same building to which its members were wont to come in youth.
Every person reading this note can attest to what Mr. Smith conveyed on that February day in 1904; we who attended Oakdale School in our youth, especially so.
This point paper, authored by a concerned resident of Dedham and former Oakdale student, presents facts about the project and insight into the School Board Rehabilitation Committee’s decision-making process. The paper also suggest a better approach forward to enhance the likelihood that the Town of Dedham will revitalize Oakdale school optimally – providing an excellent education for our children at a reasonable, affordable price.
Facts:
· The material condition of Oakdale Elementary School is inadequate for safe, effective education of Dedham’s children.
· Oakdale serves 256 students in grades 1-5. There are three sections in grades 1, 2, 3, and 5 and two sections in grade 4 for a total of 14 sections with an average class size of approximately 18 students (Preferred Schematic Report, May 2, 2024-Revised).
· Oakdale consists of three buildings, one which opened on February 22, 1904 (i.e. the “1902 building”) and two additions, built in 1951 and 1960 respectively.
· Massachusetts school districts have several options to correct an inadequate building, among which:
o Build a new school,
o Renovate an existing school
o Renovate and build an addition to an existing school.
· Dedham established a School Board Rehabilitation Committee (SBRC) in December 2000 “to study and recommend improvements to the aging structures that houses the town’s students” (Preferred Schematic Report, May 2, 2024-Revised).[1]
· SBRC partnered with the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) to manage the project, presumably because in doing so, Dedham became eligible for partial reimbursement for the project price, whether Dedham builds a new school or renovates and builds an addition to an existing school, provided the project meets education standards and applicable construction codes. Partnering with MSBA also obligates Dedham to accept MSBA’s selected architect, designers, etc., providing feasibility studies.
· SBRC exceeded the implied “rehabilitation” [2] mandate articulated in MSBA and posted on Dedham town websites by…
o considering 4 options, 3 of which ignored rehabilitation completely, and instead uniquely involved new construction, whereas…
o only 1 option involved making “improvements to the aging structure that houses the town’s students,” namely the existing Oakdale School which includes three buildings, built in 1902, 1959 and 1960.
· The Dedham Public Schools website ref the Oakdale School Project is inadequate to assess whether SBRC considered all 4 MSBA options equally seriously, though the website states, “The project has explored all potential construction opportunities, from the reconstruction of the Oakdale School alone, to a broader plan with multi-site review and a different approach to elementary school configuration.” That statement, however, is inaccurate. SBRC has not considered reconstruction of the Oakdale School alone, as all parties involved understood that the existing buildings cannot house the 360 students the plan envisions (360 students represents a student population increase of 104 students or a 41% increase in population.).
· The Dedham Public School Website also explains that, “The current Oakdale Elementary Building Project will explore ways in which the Town can capitalize on state funding to improve and update Dedham’s Oakdale Elementary School facilities.” This statement is true, but it indicates that, as explained in a previous bullet, Dedham must submit to the architects, design firm etc. that the MSBA designates. Thus, the alternatives SBRC considers are necessarily based upon estimates of a single firm, and thus subject to the mistakes or biases of that firm providing the estimates. The author of this point paper notes that the prices that the MSBA-designated firm provided to the SBRC are higher for renovations than new construction for every scenario envisioned – which is contrary to experience across the United States.
· June 7, 2023: Dedham School Committee unanimously voted to move forward with a combined student enrollment option (Oakdale + Greenlodge) of 550 students for the Oakdale School Project. Project parameters were largely based upon this enrollment number, though subsequent votes, in response to citizen commitment to keep the neighborhood Greenlodge School, later negated that number.
· June 2023: Several Dedham sites were test fit for various building configurations. Using different massings for a school, Useable Open Space “UOS” and construction phasing were considered.
· June 26, 2023: SBRC unanimously voted for the Oakdale site – apparently because of the advantages for new construction at that site: a relatively flat site, owned by the school district, with large open areas for construction, optimal for solar orientation, centrally located, accessible by car and foot, ample space for site access and circulation, and free from wetlands and flood restrictions.
· August 7, 2023: SBRC unanimously voted for “Option D.” Option D, also known as the “Core Cluster” calls for a new building on the southwest side of the Oakdale campus, destruction of the current 1902, 1951 and 1960 school buildings and installing athletic fields in the area where the current to-be-demolished buildings resides Options A and B, both rejected, are variations on Option D. Option C would include renovating the 1902 school and building 2-story wings on the north and south sides of the 1902 building. For the sake of comparison, the SRBC received a cost estimate for Option 0 (zero) which presented only the costs of updating code requirements at the existing buildings (electrical, HVAC etc.).
· Records readily available exclude explicit information regarding the criteria SBRC used to select Option D and reject Options A, B, and C. The lack of information regarding what criteria drove SBRC’s decision-making process is contrary to the general principle of transparency important to public projects.
· March 20, 2024: Dedham School Committee unanimously voted for 360 student enrollment.
· March 25, 2024: SBRC “unanimously voted for the Oakdale site” (The meaning of this vote is unclear).
· According to John Heffernan, SBRA Vice Chair, Dedham is scheduled to receive $32M project reimbursement from MSBA (Discussion during 17 January 2025 informal meeting). Assuming the stated total price of the project the SBRC selected does not change from that indicated in the Preferred Schematic Report, May 2, 2024-Revised, Dedham would be responsible for price of $81.2M. Option D price statistics are provided below (The author of this point paper notes that the $81.2M figure exceeds the amount often used in discussing the project.).
Option D Statistics (Assumes Enrollment of 360 students) | |
| Cost per SF | $ 955.97 |
| Construction Costs | $ 87.1 M |
| Soft Costs | $ 26.1 M |
| Total Project Costs | $ 113.2 M |
· There are inadequate data to determine the same statistics for Option C. While renovation and construction costs are estimated to be $91.2M, no data are available for soft costs, so total project price is unknown. Nor are data available to discern the project reimbursement from MSBA, so total project price that Dedham would be responsible to pay is also unknown.
· Total project costs (i.e. price) for the Oakdale Project are, in part, a reflection of Dedham’s unique requirements that SBRC presented to the MSBA-designated architect and construction consultants. Dedham’s requirements include several deviations from the MSBA amounting to a total of 19,110 SF more building space than the MSBA standard calls for – for 360 students – per the chart below. For example, the MSBA standard is to have 23 students in a classroom. Dedham insists on 18 students in each classroom. Inadequate information is available to determine how much the price of the Oakdale Project price is inflated as a result of the deviations from the MSBA standard. The following data apply:
| Deviations Reflecting SBRC Submitted Requirements (Preferred Schematic Report, May 2, 2024-Revised). | |||
| CORE ACADEMIC (+9,000 SF) | ART AND MUSIC (+1,350 SF) | ADMIN & GUIDANCE (+460 SF) | |
| (4) General Classrooms +3,800 SF | (1) Music Classroom +150 SF | (1) Larger General Office +70 SF | |
| (1) SF STE Room and Storage +1,200 SF | (-2) Practice Rooms -150 SF | (1) Teachers’ Work Room +270 SF | |
| (4) Grades 1 & 2 R Breakout +1,200 SF | (1) Music Storage +150 SF | (1) Lactation Room +120 SF | |
| (3) Cohort Commons +2,400 SF | (1) Maker Space +1,200 SF | ||
| (2) Academic Storage +400 SF | SF CUSTODIAL (+200 SF) | ||
| HEALTH AND PHYS ED (+850 SF) | (1) Outdoor Equip Storage +200 SF | ||
| SPECIAL EDUCATION (+3,680 SF) | (1) Larger Gym +750 SF | ||
| (1) Medically Fragile CR +1,000 SF | (1) Gym Storeroom +100 | OTHER (+1,600 SF) | |
| (3) Teacher Planning +150 SF | (1) Net Zero Mechanical +1,600 SF | ||
| (1) Resource Room +500 SF | SF DINING/FOOD SERV (+1,880 SF) | ||
| (2) Larger Toilet Rooms +20 SF | (1) Larger Cafeteria +790 SF | ||
| (1) OT / PT Room +950 SF | (1) Larger Kitchen +440 SF | ||
| (1) IEP Conference Room +250 SF | (1) Larger Staff Lunch +50 SF | ||
| (1) Psychiatrist Office +150 SF | (1) Quiet Dining +600 SF | ||
| (1) Guidance Office +150 SF | |||
| (1) Eval Team Leader Office +250 SF | MEDICAL (+90 SF): | ||
| (1) Break-Out Room +150 SF | (1) Larger Toilet +40 SF | ||
| (1) Records Room +110 SF | (1) Larger Office / Waiting +50 SF | ||
Re: The SBRC Decision-Making Process re: Oakdale School
- The decision-making process regarding whether to replace or renovate and add an existing school should involve considerable public input as well as address community needs. Indeed, the logic for public input centers around understanding community needs since no single administrator nor any institution is as aware of community needs as the community itself. The SBRC, therefore, has: held multiple meetings open to the public, live streamed the meetings on the town’s television network and published minutes of those meetings. The Dedham School System maintains a website with SBRC-related information available.
- While transparency seems to underscore SBRC’s process, the meetings, minutes et al available to the public do little more than to: (1) affirm the need to improve the material condition of the school and (2) transmit to the public SRBC’s findings – that Option D is the most cost effective alternative for the project.
- Fundamental shortcomings of the SBRC public meetings process are apparent to this analyst. The many public meetings SBRC have held have been used largely to convince constituents of the position that the SBRC has taken. Instead, the meetings should have been used to communicate the responsibilities of the SBRC, to discern the needs of stakeholders, and to explore with stakeholders the strengths and weaknesses of all alternatives. The SBRC has apparently done none of these things.
- First, the analyst authoring this point paper, like many of the people of the town of Dedham, believed that the SBRC was executing their stated responsibilities – “to study and recommend improvements to the aging structures that houses the town’s students” – not demolish them and build anew.
- Second, to this day, there is no way an observer can discern the criteria – which should be derived from the needs of all stakeholders – that SBRC used to make the decisions it has made.
- Third, information is not available to understand the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of the proposed projects.
- Fourth, the SBRC has apparently done nothing to explore the option of not partnering with the MSBA (a financial organization). Leaving MSBA out of the process would result on forgoing the possibility of state reimbursement, but doing so would also (1) avoiding expensive requirements attendant to MSBA sponsored projects and (2) allow Dedham to use competitive processes for all phases of the project.
- Demolishing the current Oakdale School has been, in essence, presented to the people of the Town of Dedham as a fait accompli. Such presentation is dissatisfying and does not adhere to the spirit of democratic governance.
A Recommended Approach to Provide Excellent Facilities for Our Children’s Education
· Several principles must be adhered to ensure an effective decision-making process for public projects that will ultimately benefit our children, our future.
1. The purpose, authority and limitations of the decision-making body must be transparent to all stakeholders.
2. Town of Dedham authorities must strive to educate all stakeholders regarding the characterization of every project alternative being considered.
3. Stakeholders must have adequate opportunity to participate in the decision-making process by indicating their priorities, likes, dislikes etc. to Dedham town authorities, and authorities must find a way to document the expressed concerns so that the concerns are a part of the decision-making process and so that stakeholders can verify the same. In short, the concerns of stakeholders must be translated into criteria against which project alternatives are measured.
4. Each project alternative must receive equal consideration against the established criteria until some are eliminated through a process of elimination.
5. The criteria to be applied to each project must be open to reconsideration and alteration over time as both town officials and other stakeholders become more educated about the project.
6. The mechanism(s) by which each project alternative is considered against each criteria must be explicit and transparent and documented.
· To administer the decision-making process in a way that adheres to the principles outlined, a cadre of willing citizens must volunteer. Those who do so must commit themselves to a period of extraordinary commitment, including enormous amounts of time devoted to outreach. The volunteers must also be capable of clear communications – both receiving and disseminating information and knowledge, and they must have excellent writing capacity to assure that every matter that transpires as part of the decision-making process is, indeed, transparent.
· Given the apparent lack of consideration expended on the possibility of renovating the 1902 building at Oakdale, the next section of this point paper presents information that states the logic for saving existential school buildings.
· Finally, the volunteers need to be willing to learn and present methods or a method that documents the decision-making approach used. Doing so helps to assure all stakeholders that the appropriate decision was made by competent public servants using the knowledge and concerns of the people – in this case, the people of the town of Dedham.
· The final section of this paper prior to the conclusion presents a hypothetical of one such method – a values tree that captures the concerns of stakeholders and applies them to project alternatives – all to help inform the decision about which project alternative is likely to be the best for the Town of Dedham.
Considerations Re: Renovating Existing School Facilities:
· Most schools built between 1900 and 1940 are masonry bearing structures that rely on massive walls to provide structural stability. Many were overdesigned in load-bearing capacity by today’s structural standards. Experience has shown that it’s generally less expensive to alter and rehabilitate an existing school rather than build a new one. Also, older schools, particularly schools built prior to World War II, were built to a level of detail and craftsmanship rarely found in other buildings.
· Older Schools Can be renovated to 21st Century standards. Creative design can transform outdated spaces to meet today’s educational needs. For example, many historic elementary schools feature cloakrooms in every classroom; removing the cloakroom wall expands the classroom. Alternately, removing two walls between three small classrooms creates two with ample space for today’s learning activities and computers. Undersized gymnasiums and cafeterias can be reprogrammed as libraries or large group instruction rooms or subdivided for other uses. A new addition can house a modern gymnasium, kitchen facilities and cafeteria. High ceilings provide plenty of room for wiring, ductwork, and piping. Large window openings provide plenty of natural daylight. Contemporary high performance glazing captures plenty of sunlight but retains interior heat.
· Experience suggests that schools originally constructed as far back as the early 1900’s, even buildings with wood framing, can be rehabilitated to meet applicable construction codes. The belief that buildings “wear out” is common but wrong. Building elements like roofs, doors windows and mechanical systems wear out and need to be replaced, but the foundation, walls and floors of a well-built school may never need to be replaced. A well-constructed school building can last indefinitely with good maintenance and a major renovation every 20 to 30 years.
· Older school buildings are often less expensive to operate in the long-run than new buildings, as old buildings’ compact, multi-story layout is more efficient to heat in the winter and cool in the summer than sprawling buildings.
· The Council of Educational Facility Planners International, a non-profit organization of professional school planners, jointly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service emphasize two important points relevant to the Oakdale School decision:
o Historic school buildings can usually be renovated to state-of-the-art educational standards at less cost than new construction.
o Rehabilitating older buildings reduces the need to manufacture new steel, brick and other building materials. The “greenest” building is the one that needn’t be built.
· Handicapped access and code compliance are issues that frequently arise. Creative design and engineering can usually address them. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, an elevator in a new addition to an older school can be combined with ramps to create accessible routes throughout the building. A sprinkler system is a highly effective means of suppressing fire that can and should be installed in any school, including historic schools. The buildings of Oakdale contain asbestos which must be addressed – whether the school is renovated or demolished.
· Renovating an older school requires more managerial oversite than building anew, but with careful thought and planning, a school district can provide an outstanding educational facility for its students and promote the social, environmental and economic health of the community at the same time.
- In 2000, the National Trust for Historic preservation placed historic neighborhood schools on the list of the nation’s 11 “most endangered places.” Oakdale School is more than 50 years old, reflects important developments in the history of educational philosophy and practice, is directly associated with a person important in the field of education and directly reflects how the person was significant, has a distinctive architectural style demonstrating the important trends in school design and construction, and retains its architectural integrity, and so is an excellent candidate to be placed on the national Register of Historic places, the nation’s official list of properties recognized for their significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Placement onto the National Register does not restrict a school district from demolishing or altering the school building in any way. However, placement would be a source of pride for Dedham.
A Notional “Values Tree” for the Oakdale School Project in Dedham
A values tree in the context of the Oakdale School Project is nothing more than an explicit expression of the values that stakeholders hold as important to the project selection decision.
Let is assume stakeholders express the following values with regards to selecting the most suitable project:
Environment Conducive to student learning
Environment Faculty Appreciates
Project Price
Aesthetic Appeal
Environmental Friendliness (i.e. “Greenness”)
Neighborhood Continuity
Historic Preservation
The values tree is constructed so that each value is used as criteria against which each project alternative is measured. During the values elicitation period, the analyst would also query stakeholders as to how (relatively) important each criterion is. For illustrative purposes, let’s assume that “Project Price” is seen as the most important value or criterion, followed by “Environment that is Conducive to Student Learning,” followed by “Environmental Friendliness,” and so on. The analyst assigns weights to each criteria to reflect its relative importance and to add to 100%. Let’s assume a hypothetical:
Environment Conducive to student learning (30%)
Environment Faculty Appreciates (8%)
Project Price (35%)
Aesthetic Appeal (2%)
Environmental Friendliness (i.e. “Greenness”) (10%)
Neighborhood Continuity (5%)
Historic Preservation (10%)
The project alternatives would perhaps include the alternatives that the MSBA has proposed (Options, A, B, C, and D) as well as non-MSBA options that the SBRC has not considered. The project overseers, the Dedham volunteers, would have to familiarize themselves thoroughly with each alternative to provide scores for each criteria (or hire disinterested parties to assign scores). For example, one can imagine that the project alternatives from MSBA would, when evaluating them for Project Price, need to account for state reimbursement, but also expenses that MSBA imposes upon its partners. Non MSBA options might reflect prices to renovate and build for a 300 student population rather than the 336 population that reflects the MSVA formula.
The analyst would weigh each score for each project against each value (criteria) and add the total scores of each project alternative. The decision-authority would not necessarily have to accept the results of the score, but would need to be able to explain why it is not accepting those results – thus, transparency and accountability are increased. In turn there would be a greater likelihood of consensus and greater adherence to democratic decision-making.
A Hypothetical Values Tree
Summary Findings:
- SBRC made good faith efforts to inform the public of its decisions and of project status, but failed to include the public in a meaningful, transparent way in the decision-making process.
- SBRC failed to educate the public about its mandate and about the relative strengths and weaknesses of each project option that the SBRC considered. Nor did SBRC communicate the criteria used to evaluate project alternatives.
- By applying for MSBA funding, Dedham ceded its central role in managing the project in two ways: (1) MSBA-selected architects etc., provided information that Dedham had to use to make its initial project determinations. Dedham does not know whether the MSBA designated architect and building consultants are more expensive than others, are biased toward new construction and against renovation etc. (2) Dedham had to abide by MSBA parameters that exceed those needed to build a perfectly functional school for Dedham’s children – to include, as an example, the MSBA student population model estimate of 360 which represents a 41% increase over the current student population. An inflated population estimate certainly drives up the price of the project.
- SBRC submitted requirements to MSBA that include deviations from the MSBA amounting to a total of 19,110 SF more building space than the MSBA standard calls for – even for the inflated student population estimate of 360 students. The deviations certainly drive up the price of the project, yet there is a dearth of information regarding the validity of Dedham’s stated requirements.
- There is essentially no information verifying that renovating the 1902 building received serious consideration. Almost every statement from SBRC officials and from highlighted citizens, including Dedham school officials (for example, as reposrted by The Dedham Times) suggests an inclination to engage “leaps of logic” – where persons recognize that the current state of Oakdale School is inadequate and immediately concludes that the way to correct the inadequacy is to replace it outright.
- In addition to failing to curb explicit costs, SBRC has done little or nothing to account for the non-accounting costs of demolishing a historically significant building: lost pride of our history, a lost educational opportunity for children to understand the past, lost physical reminder of our community’s continuity of purpose, the loss of superior aesthetics, materials and craftsmanship of an early 20th Century building, the greater insult on the environment that building anew imposes…
Sources Consulted:
Dedham Public Schools Oakdale Elementary Building Project (https://www.dedham.k12.ma.us/community/oakdale-build) Accessed multiple times during the week of 20 January, 2025 [Website includes links to MSBA Reports, Meeting agendas, material and minutes, and other information.]
Massachusetts School Building Authority (https://www.massschoolbuildings.org/)
Hylton, Thomas Editor, of Save Our Lands, Save Our Towns Inc., “Renovate or Replace: The Case for Restoring and Reusing Older School Buildings” Published on Behalf of: The Pennsylvania Historic Schools Task Force et al. (Date Published is uncertain, but after 2007).
Town of Dedham, Dedication of the Oakdale Schoolhouse, Dedham, Massachusetts, February 22, 1904 (Available at the Dedham Public Library Main Building, Dedham Collection, 372.9744, Dedham)
Town of Dedham School Board Rehabilitation Committee (https://www.dedham-ma.gov/your-government/school-building-rehabilitation-committee) Accessed during the week of 20 January, 2025, though periodically inaccessible while being maintained or updated.
[1] According to Dedham Code, Article IX, School Building Rehabilitation Committee, [Adopted 11-16-2015 ATM by Art. 12], § 12-33, the purpose of this by-law is to provide a permanent SBRC that shall have continuing responsibility to direct engineering and architectural studies to determine the current physical condition of the Town School Department buildings and to make recommendations to the Town relative to proposed rehabilitation, expansion and/or new construction projects.” Nonetheless, citizens of Dedham, – and even the Massachusetts state officials (which see MSBA) believe the SBRC is properly focused on “rehabilitation,” not new construction.
[2] “Rehabilitation” refers to the process of restoring or improving the condition of an existing building or structure by repairing damage, upgrading systems, and enhancing functionality, while often aiming to preserve its historical features and extend its lifespan, rather than demolishing and rebuilding entirely: essentially, it’s about making an older building usable and relevant for current needs while maintaining its integrity (AI Query: “Meaning of rehabilitation in the construction industry.”)