Dorchester school proposes expansion

By adamg on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 5:49pm

The Epiphany School has proposed a new building wrapped around the old Industrial School for Girls on Centre Street that would let it expand a teacher residency program and add a greenhouse and outdoor gardening area for its students.

In a filing with the BRA, the independent middle school, which has a 12-hour school day, writes:

Epiphany’s proposed project on the Property consists of the construction of a new one-to-three story structure containing approximately 25,220 square feet of space for: (1) school administration, (2) graduate support and family services; (3) a greenhouse and outdoor gardening area for middle school students; (4) three dwelling units for Teaching Fellows; (5) the early learning classrooms, primarily serving siblings (up to five years of age) of middle school students and their families; and (6) forty-two (42) off-street parking spaces and related courtyard, landscaping and other improvements.

The school noted the unusual nature of the three Centre Street properties it bought for the expansion:

The design process for the center began with investigating ways to keep the existing structure, currently being utilized as teacher housing for the Epiphany School, intact while being sensitive to its historic significance. Additionally it is important to the program that the children who will be attending have access to quiet, natural spaces away from the activity of the street. This site is unique as it contains many mature trees, something not typically found in dense urban settings, and early on it became clear that efforts would need to be made to retain as many trees as reasonably possible.

In addition to the BRA, the Zoning Board of Appeals will have to consider the project, because the new building would have three stories in a zone that normally only allows 2 1/2 stories.

Epiphany small-project review application (15.1M PDF).

Neighborhoods:

Dorchester

Free tagging:

Development

BRA

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

please help!

By can'tstanditstan on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 11:03pm.

I have been less than satisfied with this project so I hope others will weigh in.

Per the noted goals and objectives:

1. Do not obstruct the front view of the former Industrial School for Girls.
> The extension of the new building all the way to the street blocks any approaching view from the west; the gym is proud of the western wing. A pedestrian's view should have just as much weight - or more - as cars; most people are walking between the T and Dot Ave.

2. Protect and preserve as many mature trees as reasonably possible.
> How many are being annihilated? The entire west side is heavily planted with mature trees.

3. Place new classrooms at the rear of the site so they have a relationship to the wooded areas
> Play spaces occur all around the neighborhood within proximity of the street but the ES has taken the position that there are scary people lurking on the sidewalk. The effect is the natural space is taken and replaced with building. My kids play on the same sidewalk.

4. Minimize street presence to integrate into the existing scale/rhythm of the neighborhood
>? There is nothing like this on the street. At the street it's almost as wide as the 3 houses across the street. There hasn't been anything built on this stretch since the 50s and this will stand out like a sore thumb.

5. Utilize residential materials and detailing to compliment the existing architecture of the community
> If I actually approved of this project, I might say, "keep going". Shingles and siding do not amount to victorian nor the few triple-deckers nearby. Bays. Brackets. Columns. Porches. These are pretty cheap looking boxes.

I have so many angles, reasons, positions to oppose this project but the mission (and power) of the school seems to cloud people's actual judgement of the project.

Looking at the plans

By Sally on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 8:33am.

It seems like a pretty attractive and thoughtful use of the space. I'm not sure I understand what your objections are. Surely you can't expect them to build either a shingle-style building or a triple-decker? I like the notion too of combing housing for teaching fellows with the school building.

Thanks Sally. I did not

By can'tstanditstan on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 11:01am.

Thanks Sally. I did not enumerate my objections, I only looked to challenge whether they have accomplished their goals.

My objections are:

1. Pulling the building to the street edge
The existing building has sat alone in the middle of its site for 150+ years leaving the edges open. I understand that the BRA pushed for this move early in the project (how many conversations have been had behind closed doors is unknown as this submission marks the "beginning" of the public process, but in fact if feels like the end) because it makes for a better urban street - while I don't disagree with that characterization generally, this is not Dot Ave and the existing frontage has been open and natural for over 150 years.

2. Over scaled development
Rather than break the programs (space/use types) into smaller buildings/units, they have made one big structure. This is a residential neighborhood - yes there is a school next door that is one big structure (and also a bad example of urbanism and poorly reflects the neighborhood's scale, but one side of it does sit on Dot Ave) - and the building units should be similarly scaled. I think a campus model would have been more appropriate.

3. Poor masterplanning
As the project has progressed the explanation for its being has evolved. Initially its impetus was explained as a daycare for at-risk children, now it's just a general "expansion" of the school. It combines several different uses into the same facility (day care/preschool, business office, housing, gymnasium, greenhouse) some of which are relative to this new use of reaching small children, but the rest being an extension of the existing school a few blocks away. My concern is that failing to analyze future growth requirements, and poor masterplanning on this site that could have allowed for greater density, the school will continue to swallow up the neighborhood.

4. Lacking neighborhood benefits
Playground is far removed from street and inaccessible. Housing will be for temporary teachers where neighbors would be welcome. Many more cars and circulation on the street - their explanation lacks any actual analysis: so many parking spaces yet people won't come by car? What until recently was a lawn out front is now clogged with more paving.

5. The general process
The project needs zoning relief (they state use and stories, at minimum) yet they obfuscate this as much as possible to give people the impression they have no choice but to comment on the design rather than should it be here at all. Both daycares and multi-family (3F) are forbidden in this zone; there are no classrooms on site so the argument that conditional-use education happens here is tenuous (though I'm sure that's the argument for having the gym and greenhouse); the BLC and BRA reviewed the project behind closed doors and gave input that was not shared with the public (there are no minutes). Outreach feels incomplete.

Regarding your comments, Sally,
>Pretty attractive
- I agree, it could be worse, but the details make a difference and we can't see much from these renderings (like how the windows will be trimmed out or whether the materials will be of appropriate finish and thickness or look cheap and flimsy). Better, however, if the building was back from the street.

>Thoughtful use of space
-If they want to have cold and shady spaces, they've done a great job, but since I don't have to (read: won't be able to) use the facility I'm happy to let them suffer from their own poor design (infant/toddler play areas are on the north side in a wooded area; main entrance is through an east facing courtyard surrounded by three story buildings).
-Neighbors to the west are left with a parking lot, a transformer, a loading area and dumpster enclosure rather than put these facilities on the east side near the existing school.
-New building sits right up to the existing drive not allowing any green buffer
-Continuous mass of building means circulation between historic housing and parking will always come to street

4. Lacking neighborhood

By anon on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 11:58am.

4. Lacking neighborhood benefits
Playground is far removed from street and inaccessible. Housing will be for temporary teachers where neighbors would be welcome.

I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding - is this a charter school or public-partnership org of some sort? Why would they be under any obligation whatsoever to use the land they own to build a yard and playground for the neighborhood? Or open up apartments to the general public?

My understanding is that it's

By Katy on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 3:23pm.

My understanding is that it's a free, private school run by donations. I think their building by the shawmut T is really attractive and relates nicely to the beautiful station, even though the styles are totally different. And having been in the playing field I think they used a small space really well. So I'm interested to see how they use the existing Industrial School building. the lot is really huge and has beautiful old trees so I'm glad they are keeping them!

I don't understand how it's "poor master planning" to make programmatic adjustments or enhancements. I also don't understand the "my children play on the same sidewalk" comment - the sidewalk will still be available, no? It sounds like what they want is a preschool classroom that looks out on trees, not parked cars.

The architect of the other

By can'tstanditstan on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 4:42pm.

The architect of the other facility has died. This is a new design team.
They are not using the existing building any differently than how it exists today.
They are keeping a portion of the existing trees but are taking down many. I have not done an accounting of the trees but I would say that 40-50% of the existing canopy will go.
Poor masterplanning is not forecasting future needs and building that into the land you already own resulting in future land purchases.
They have presented the street/street-goers as something to be afraid of/hide from, and have designed their building as such, perpetuating that notion.

I read that they want the

By Katy on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 9:07pm.

I read that they want the children to "have access to quiet, natural spaces away from the activity of the street" - is that where you're getting "They have presented the street/street-goers as something to be afraid of/hide from, and have designed their building as such, perpetuating that notion" or is that from somewhere else?

Being a facility not approved

By can'tstanditstan on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 4:35pm.

Being a facility not approved as of right, there are frequently trade-offs to garner community support. Being a homeowner in the vicinity of the project I have an interest in the outcome of the neighborhood. Providing community access to the playspaces would be community-building. Providing housing for those who have chosen to live in the neighborhood would imply an interest in maintaining its health. The school also provides some permanent housing for its teachers, but the housing component in this new facility is for college student-fellows who may or may not invest in/have an investment in the neighborhood. I also find the housing component odd as attached the facility as a whole and think it would function better if separate, even if still on the same site.