Well said, Lis! Thank-you! Katy and Tom Walker
On Sep 26, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Lis Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: I'm sorry, but the hair-splitting -- 13,000 vs. 11,400 sq. ft. -- so clouds the discussion that it becomes meaningless, especially when there is a suggestion to make up that 1,600 sq. ft. with other spaces in town. Aren't there administrative costs -- time and staffing -- associated with that way of thinking? What is gained by slimming things down by less than 10%? I've read through these threads, and the numbers -- oh my god the numbers. When I listened to a podcast this week from the London Review of Books related to this piece (which I urge you to read)<https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n18/john-lanchester/get-a-rabbit> all I could think of was the Community Center, and the discussions that go round and round about the usage, the square footage, the justification (or not) for those numbers, the need to survey further, the need to start again, etc. To quote Mr. Lanchester: Discussions that were once about values and beliefs – about what a society wants to see when it looks at itself in the mirror – have increasingly turned to arguments about numbers, data, statistics. And: As the House of Commons Treasury Committee said dryly in a 2016 report on the economic debate about EU membership, ‘many of these claims sound factual because they use numbers.’ The idea that numbers convey credibility is nonsense. We are meant to believe that some people possess some level of numeracy that the rest of us can't, and that only they pay keen attention to stats and figures. And yet these same people really just don't want to see anything built, at all: some of them voted against the trimmed down, tiered budgets at the vote last winter, after loudly proclaiming by email (spewing numbers everywhere) that what we need are trimmed down, tiered budgets to choose from. This is not arguing in good faith, this is muddying the waters so people feel like they can't agree to anything. Outside Donelan's last weekend I heard a woman tell CCBC volunteers "I only know we're going to be screwed". Really? How can anybody feel good about convincing people (or trying to convince people) of things that simply aren't true? And should a decades-long initiative be scuttled because the numbers are off a little bit, because a few years have gone by and things have changed, or population has shifted, or or or?? What happens when you survey people again, and the slow churn of committees and bureaucracy means that new number is outdated? (Hint: that's the point of the exercise.) And has anybody bothered to ask how many people don't take advantage of these programs -- all of them -- because the facilities aren't up to par, accessible, pleasant, etc.? That is a number worth talking about. Lis On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 8:28 AM Lynne Smith <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dennis, Thank you for your thoughtful discussion of the Community Center size. I agree that the CCBC has not responded to the questions that many have been asking regarding space needs for existing programs. The 13,000 sq ft space not including LEAP or Maintenance is clearly too much. In fact, I think the 11,400 sq ft proposed as a minimum by ICON is still too much. We could easily accommodate most programs with 10,000 sq ft on the Hartwell Campus, supplemented by use of space at Pierce House, Bemis Hall, First Parish Stone Church, and/or St Anne’s Church. CCBC maintains that a single building offers many casual encounters: people coming for one activity run into people coming for another. This may be true but I do not think it is justification for abandoning activities in the other lovely buildings with convenient parking that Lincoln uniquely offers. I also agree that there is no reason a staff person has to be at off-site activities if the designated teacher or a COA volunteer will be present. Lincoln needs to 'do something’ about the state of the COA/HS facility but if the ‘something’ is too costly, I fear the Town will vote it down. I still hope to see a really good option for the cost of $12.5 million. That amount probably cannot include LEAP so other funding must be ‘found’ for this school-related activity. Lynne Smith 5 Tabor Hill Road Lincoln, MA 01773 cell: 781-258-1175 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> On Sep 25, 2023, at 7:30 PM, Dennis Picker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The amount of finished interior space is a major driver of the cost of the proposed community center. There are some who believe that even the bloated 2018 proposal is not large enough. That design included yet another lecture hall (Bemis, the Learning Commons and the Brooks auditorium are not enough for a town of this size?), a sound recording studio, an appliance fix-it shop, and facilities for cooking classes. In May, 2023, ICON architects presented the CCBC with a trimmed down space proposal of 13,000 sq ft (not including space for the Lincoln school maintenance needs or for LEAP). This a 10,000 sq ft reduction from the 2018 proposal, and was achieved by removing some of the obvious excesses of that earlier proposal. In its communications, the CCBC proudly states how big a reduction they have achieved with this proposal. This was a good start, but it was an easy first step. The CCBC has never deliberated over key aspects of that proposal, and instead continues to use it as a benchmark, claiming that it represents what Lincoln needs. The CCBC has pointed out how much each of the three options falls short of the 13,000 sq ft proposal and in doing so, they seem to have convinced some people that the proposals do not allow the town to offer the set of PRD and COA/HS programs currently offered, let alone account for future growth. I have repeatedly asked the CCBC to discuss the assumptions leading to the 13,000 sq ft proposal at public meetings. They discussed and voted to accept capacity numbers for various programs (many of which are quite large compared to one-time peak, let alone average attendance—ie, these numbers have lots of growth built into them). These capacity numbers drive the size of various program spaces. But the CCBC did not review the programming schedule matrix which leads to utilization figures which in turn leads to the type and number of program spaces to be built, nor the size and type of administrative spaces. They did not explore the pros and cons of holding some programs at Bemis or Pierce instead of providing space for them in the community center. When I questioned some of those aspects at multiple meetings, ICON responded that “this is what is needed” and there was no further discussion. I urge you to carefully examine the assumptions behind the 13,000 sq ft proposal, which are presented in the document that ICON submitted. Those assumptions build in a huge amount of growth in program attendance and offerings. You can find that 5/31/23 document here<https://lincolncommunitycenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-05-31-Lincoln-CCBC-Public-Presentation-after-feedback.pdf> as posted on the CCBC web site. Study the material, ask questions of the CCBC and come to your own conclusions. Here are some points to explore: 1. ICON architects have said that they target utilization of program spaces to be in the 60-70% range. They said that this utilization strikes a balance between not having underutilized space, while still providing capacity for new programs to be added to the schedule for the various rooms. The utilization numbers in the 5/31 document, which the CCBC did not explore, are grossly overstated: a) The utilization % were based on how many hours a space is used out of a 40 hour 9-5 week. However, many programs are offered in the evening hours. Taking this into account corrects the distorted utilization figures of 96% shown for multipurpose room 2, for example. b) Many programs are not held every week, but the utilization numbers count them as if they were offered every week (examples: Men’s coffee & coffee with a select occurs 1x/month for each, foreign language groups occur 2x/month,ukulele occurs 1x/month, memoirs occurs 1x/month, some support groups meet 1x/mo, some 2x/mo, special events are listed as 1-2x/mo). To be representative of reality, the utilization numbers should be based on a full month, to account for non-weekly uses. c) Correct utilization numbers would come in well below the 60-70% target, meaning there is plenty of room for adding programs or second sections of oversubscribed programs. Remember that ICON said that at 70% you still could fit new things in. 2. The utilization numbers assume that senior dining (for 50 people!) is expanded to accommodate that number of people 3x/week, although the long-running program has been offered 1x/week, to much smaller numbers. Again, lots of growth assumed. 3. The utilization figures assume that programs that could plausibly be conducted at Pierce House or Bemis first floor meeting room (such as mahjong, bridge, chess, language groups) are scheduled to be held in the community center. The CCBC has not explored the pros and cons of such possibilities. At CCBC meetings, various members have made statements such as “holding such programs offsite is a myth because the offsite spaces are already at capacity.” Not true. It has also been said that holding such programs offsite would require extra staff time-to go to the remote site. That does not pass the common sense test. Just have a regular attendee of a particular offsite program take attendance and bring the mahjong tiles, chess pieces, etc. 4. The size and number of administrative spaces has not been deliberated. For example, the CCBC never explored what PRD operations might be like if they did not get a dedicated conference room capable of accommodating 20 people and instead held their meetings in other spaces in the community center or at town offices in rooms that are typically unused during the daytime, as most town board meetings are in the evening. Or why we need a dedicated reception area for COA and another for PRD beyond providing a building lobby. Can some part-time COA staff share offices instead of having a dedicated space? The bottom line: there is lots of assumed growth plus some fat in the 13,000 foot proposal. It is inappropriate and misleading to say that any option that does not provide that amount of space falls short of meeting the town’s needs. Don't be misled into supporting a too-large for our needs new building. Dennis Picker, Page Road -- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. -- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
