Nick Wants a New Medford HS

06/22/2026

Hi, everybody. Your favourite Nick here again. Last week the MHS Building Committee (SBC) voted to approve the submission of the preferred schematic report (PSR) to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). This submission will be reviewed by the MSBA in their Board of Director’s meeting in August. Approval at that meeting will allow the committee to begin Schematic Design which will turn our building concept into a detailed design, which will be completed by October, when it is submitted for detailed costing. For more on this timeline and the project, see the great primer by SC member Jessica Parks here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1892srmlb4_JS2_zmmO9BzzyV0Fr5_Exl/view?usp=drive_link

At the PSR stage, only a single design concept is used, as dictated by the MSBA-defined procedures. The design that emerged after numerous rounds of evaluation, resident feedback, and meetings, was C2.2A, selected on 10 June from a final group of six designs. This design is pictured here in partially eaten cake form.

As I detailed in my previous post, now that a single design has been picked, the hard work of going through the space summaries and the design with a fine-toothed comb to adjust, trim, or reapportion spaces can now begin. This will include a number of activities:

1. 50 (!) separate meetings between instructors and the project team to better understand their space needs and feedback on the design

2. More SBC meetings over the summer months to continue discussions about space efficiencies, with each meeting also focusing on a particular topic like parking alternatives, non-core programming, auditorium, etc.

3. Listening sessions (joint public hearings) with SBC, the city council, and the school committee - normally these are done annually but because of the size and scope of this project, several meetings will be held in H2 2026.

Meetings with instructors will be very important for making judicious adjustments in the allocated spaces for this project. Two excellent examples of this were on display at this meeting. A total of about 6500 square feet (not including grossing factor) was cut from the space summary, of which voc/tech shop offices and oft storage formed a major part. These were cut largely due to feedback from voc/tech instructors, who said that separate offices were not their preference, and that the loft storage spaces were less than ideal, many preferring floor storage instead. Member Miller raised the question of whether a smaller number of offices could be added back in at a later date, and the project team said it should be possible–it was expected that this would be the exception, not the rule. The rest of the space adjustments can be found in the agenda below (all were unanimously accepted at the meeting):

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1781553592/mps02155org/q71v1dgcroexng3zgncg/06182026MCHSBCFullMonthlyFinal_1.pdf

This brings the total of accepted space reductions and efficiencies (between 28 April and 18 June meetings) to about $30-40M so far. And importantly, this represents what we can expect from the next few months in the process: going through the space summary line by line, taking feedback from instructors and other stakeholders, and seeing where efficiencies can be gained without sacrificing the educational plan.

The committee voted to approve submission of the PSR to the MSBA and continue with these detailed space and program considerations leading up to October.

The approval to submit the PSR was nearly unanimous, with only member Preisner voting against.

Preisner made an extended comment explaining his vote that touched upon a few issues. He expressed that the size and cost of the school are largely due to the goals and requirements in the educational plan, in both of its versions (an updated version was approved at the 15 June SC meeting, and included in the PSR). You can find a summary of the most recent SC meeting where an updated educational plan was approved here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/medfordma/comments/1u8ioif/unofficial_recap_medford_school_committee_61526/

Member Preisner seemed to be suggesting that the SBC should have been doing more to get the SC and MPS administration to draft an educational plan that called for less space. It is worth noting that at the SC meetings where the educational plan was voted on, in both of its iterations, there was no public comment from any member of the community. I can't say whether there was any written comment to SC or the educational administration during the ed plan drafting. It’s also worth noting that four members of the school committee (Member Graham, Member Olapade, Member Ruseau, and Mayor Lungo-Koehn) are also on the SBC, and other members of the SC are frequently in attendance at SBC meetings.

One of Preisner’s arguments was that, in his professional experience, it is easier to change project scope earlier rather than later, and that more substantial cuts should be made before the PSR is submitted. In my own professional experience, it is indeed easier to make scope changes early on, largely because less work has been done. This seems a bit self-evident. But I think the impact is asymmetric between additions or cuts: if you cut items now, it becomes harder and harder to put them back in if you change your mind in the future. If you decide to keep something for now and cut later, typically that proves easier and less chaotic.

In addition, spreading these evaluations and space changes out over multiple meetings gives the public a better chance to digest and provide feedback. Some previous meetings (28 April for example) had up to 160,000 sqft in space adjustments at once, which I feel is too much for people to take in in such a short time.

This is why I very much support the way these changes are being evaluated and will be made in the upcoming meetings. The SBC and project team over the next few months will be honing the design with input from instructors, City Council, the School Committee, and citizens, in an iterative process. Now that the SBC has a chosen design, some really granular feedback will be possible on how to improve the schematic. MPS administration, who drafted the educational plan, will be helping to vet all proposed changes to ensure that the SBC don’t jeopardize satisfying it, and decisions will be made about inclusion and location of various non-core programs (which I discussed above, and in a previous post, linked below):

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/192qUiByfC/

To finish with an analogy: the SBC are steering a ship, not firing an arrow. They need to be very careful in how they adjust course, but they can continue to adjust. I am eager to see how the SBC and project team approach this task over the next month, and I’ll continue to provide updates as we move forward.

06/17/2026

Hi, everybody. Nick here again. Today I’m thinking about what I saw at the MHSBC Community Forum #5 that happened on Wednesday 3 June, and the meeting last week on 10 June where option C2.2A was selected (yay!).

Now that we have a design (C2.2A, pictured), I’m thinking about trade-offs and alternatives. What are the options for what we include in the building? What are the options for how we build certain items like parking, fields, and so on? What are options for how we handle the construction and the operation of the school during that time?

In my mind I have these topics in a few broad categories, and I’ll be doing a couple posts over the next few weeks to cover items 2-5:

1. Grades 9-12 High School Programming and CTE

2. Non-core programming (this post)

3. Auditorium

4. Gym/PE and pool

5. Fields and parking

Let’s start with non-core programming. Apart from the 9-12 and CTE, MHS currently hosts the following non-core programs which serve the community of Medford more broadly:

1. Medford Community Media - https://www.medfordma.org/departments/mcm
2. Community Partner Rental Spaces

3. Welcome Center/Central Offices - registration, parent information center, and a connection to other services like English learning, medical, MFN, transportation, and so on.

4. Kids Corner Daycare - https://www.mps02155.org/staffportal/kidscorner-preschool

5. Medford Family Network - https://www.mps02155.org/students-families/medford-family-network

Housing of these existing spaces in a new high school build is projected to cost around $54M.

The cost/alternatives matrices also include potential for new non-core programming spaces:

1. Teen Health Center - This is meant to be a space for medical and social workers, or mental health workers to be present and supporting students, coordinating with the nursing office and the behavioural health and school counselling offices. One example cited is having a network like Cambridge Health Alliance provide some services in the high school via this space. It has been mentioned at some recent meetings that grants would be available to support a program like this, as long as there is a dedicated (as opposed to a shared) space.

2. Community Meeting Space - spaces to have municipal meetings and hearings like CDB, school committee, etc. other than city hall and the library, with good zoom/online meeting capabilities. This is currently lacking in the city. It could also serve somewhat like Bonsignor Hall for more than just municipal meetings, reservable by any group that needs a large meeting space.

3. MEEP Preschool would be centralized at the high school and see expansion by 1-2 classrooms. https://www.mps02155.org/students-families/meep

Adding these new spaces in a new high school is projected to cost around $38M. This also doesn’t include the relocation of Curtis Tufts to be housed in the HS building.

All non-core programs are separately costed in the estimates done by the SBC. None of them is eligible for reimbursement by the MSBA, meaning that if included in the project, Medford is paying 100% of the costs of building them. Cost estimates have been prepared for “HS only”, “HS + current non-core” and “HS + all non-core” programming. If you want to see a great interactive cost comparison tool for all these items, check out Mike Mastrobuoni, Medford School Committee's great calculator here: https://mmastrobuoni.github.io/med-high-cost/

The cost projections above don’t tell the whole story, though. For example, if we were to go with an HS-only build, where would existing MCM, Kids Corner, MFN, and the Welcome Center go? They would lose their spaces, we don’t have a lot of other municipal buildings or real estate, and none of the ones we do have would be able to absorb these programs (Curtis Tufts School and the Hegner Center are both in need of remediation, and aren’t big enough to house very much). So what would we do? Rent/lease? Buy new buildings? Build new structures with their own debt exclusions? Let these programs die? I certainly hope not, considering the number of people they serve and how popular things like MFN are. And there’s no guarantee that if moved elsewhere, we would even save money in the long run. Suddenly this choice doesn’t look as simple. Cutting the currently existing programs’ spaces especially may have knock-on effects that end up costing the city and the community in more ways than one.

Another aspect of this which affects the newly proposed non-core programming as well is “adjacencies”. When things like MEEP and the teen health center are placed in the same building as other resources (for example, with the Welcome Center and its language screening, medical, and MFN), it enables them to collaborate more and provide more holistic service for those in need. If we place some of these in other locations, or if we choose not to build them to save money in the short term, what are we gaining or losing in the long term?

This project is one where the trade-offs between short- and long-term impacts are very starkly visible. Modulars to allow shorter building time? Or no modulars and a longer building time? Lower sticker price with the added complication of re-homing community programs? Or a bigger investment up front for long-term community benefit?

Balance between these concerns is key. What I want to see from city leaders is not just a focus on a low sticker price, because this high school needs to serve students and the community for decades. If we are able to capture some efficiencies now the payoff will extend far into the future. And I think we can do this while still being mindful of the tax implications. Grants, philanthropy, space reductions and efficiencies will all play a role here. But here's what I would ask the Mayor as we start this process: what do you see this high school looking like and doing 25 years from now?

Let's look beyond the next budget cycle and say what we want this building to be doing for our students and our community in the decades to come.

06/15/2026

Want to see what impacts the cost of a new Medford HS? Try out this calculator made by Mike Mastrobuoni, Medford School Committee!

One of the questions I hear most often about the Medford High School project is: "What might this actually cost taxpayers?"
The real answer is that it depends on a lot of factors. Things like project scope, final MSBA reimbursement, borrowing rates years down the road, and more.

To help make our choices a little easier to understand, I put together an interactive tool: https://mmastrobuoni.github.io/med-high-cost/

The idea is pretty simple: Learn more about the options being considered, their costs, and estimate what that *could* look like on your tax bill.

It's not an official analysis and it's definitely going to change, so feedback is welcome. I'll work to edit and update the site as we move closer to a final project!

Please reach out with suggestions, questions, or to geek out about the math -- [email protected]

Disclaimer: this is a project I'm doing on my own, not with the School Committee, Project Team, or City Administration. Just a tool to learn more before we get into the real work.

06/11/2026

Tonight, the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee selected design option C2.2A as their final design for submission as part of the preferred schematic report. This is a major milestone in the project, and kicks off the next round of deliberations over space allocations, programming, and other fine-grained details of the project.

The meeting heard from community members who voiced opinions on their preferred designs, including two future students. Common themes were daylight in the new building, desire to maintain the gym and pool spaces, desire to preserve existing community programming housed at the high school, and even a comment that high school starting at 7:40 AM is too early! Community feedback at the meeting and as measured by in-person and online voting was strongly in favour of the C options, with C2.2A and C3.4A fairly close in final tallies. Shown here is the final tally of community opinions on the different designs.

From the committee, we heard that emergency responders (police, fire chiefs) had strong preferences against D1.1, and preferences in favour of C2.2A due to accessibility. Comments from the SBC included some thoughtful concerns over sightlines and hidden spaces in curving structures like the C3.4A design, as well as one regarding sound isolation from the gym in that design where it shares walls with so many other parts of the building.

One common thread in the selection of the C options was that they provide flexibility going forward. As presented in last week's meeting, either of the C options can become an HS-only option or one that only preserves current community programming. The A and B options did not offer this degree of flexibility.

An interesting point brought up later in the meeting by member Paul Melone asked if any of the existing gym space could (if needed at some point in the design purpose) be repurposed for other uses during renovation/construction. The project manager responded that this should be doable, presenting an interesting scenario for potential changes of use.

Ultimately, only two options were explicitly eliminated by a vote. Those were A.1, the code upgrade, and D1.1, the new construction version. A.1 was unanimously seen by the community and the committee as not meeting the needs of this project. D1.1’s elimination was motioned by the mayor, responding to the feedback from emergency responders.

In the end, C2.2A was selected by a nearly unanimous vote. Of the members present, only member Preisner voted against.

I am so excited to see what the next stage of this project brings, and want to express my gratitude to all the members of the committee, the members of the project team, superintendent Galusi, and Mayor Lungo-Koehn for their leadership and thoughtful work on this incredibly important project.

Shown in the picture is the tally of community votes for the finalist designs. P.S.: C2.2A was my favourite too!

06/09/2026

Here's a great cheat sheet on the many differences between the six finalist designs that will be considered on June 10th! Be sure to use the PDF link for easier viewing.

06/07/2026

Hi, everybody. Nick here again. Next week is a major milestone for the Medford High School project, because a single design concept will be selected as part of the preferred schematic report (PSR). This means that after the past several months of considering the original set of more than 50 designs, whittling them down to 29, then 6, we will go to a single design concept for more detailed scoping and costing. This has entailed an enormous amount of work by the SBC and the project team, not to mention the citizens show showed up to the SBC meetings and the five community forums held over the last few months.

The PSR itself will be submitted on 25 June to the MSBA, who will vote on it 26 August. It’s important to note that the committee is only selecting a design option at this point. They have not finalized spaces, core vs. non-core program inclusions, or other granular aspects of the building plan. Those will continue to be refined over the coming months until October, when the project scope will be finalized by the City (14 Oct).

You can find this timeline here (page 7):

https://medfordhsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2026-06-01_MCHSBC-Meeting_FINAL.pdf

So what are the options that remain? On Wednesday’s Community Forum #5 there was an updated presentation at the SBC which you can find below, which had six design options, and three cost options for each–the three cost options were “HS only”, “HS + existing programs”, and “HS + all current and proposed programs”. I’ll be covering what those mean more specifically in another post, but the non-core programming includes things like Kids Corner, MFN, the welcome center, teen health center, and so on, only some of which currently exist at the school.

This is the point at which we are broadly deciding: do we want to code-upgrade, renovate with minimal new construction, renovate with substantial new construction, or go all-new? Each has benefits and drawbacks, which I've tried to very succinctly summarize below in a list of all the six finalist designs.

What I think everyone should keep in mind is that with several of the options below it is possible to get a great new school. There will be opportunities for cost efficiencies and space reductions, non-core programming inclusion, parking alternatives, and so on over the coming months. The discussion around project scope is still very much underway and will continue until October! I am very excited to see what the SBC picks for the design concept, and to see them further hone the design into a final product that reflects the community’s, students’ and educators’ needs. This is a big step forward, but we still have lots of work to do together.

The six options, from which one will be selected on 10 June, and a brief summary of them are as follows. You can find information about them in the presentation from Community Forum #5 here:

https://medfordhsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2026-06-03_MCHSBC-Community-Forum-5_distrib.pdf

A.1: Code upgrade. This is essentially a gut-reno of the existing building to bring it up to code. It is projected to cost $528M. This options does not satisfy the educational plan, and thus is entirely non-reimbursable by the MSBA. It will preserve existing non-core programming, but does not add any new non-core programming. This option requires extensive use of modular classrooms during construction, and the total timeline including site prep and finalization is 60 months. Edgerly field and the parking setup remain unchanged.

B1.2: Addition-renovation. This preserves and renovates the existing building, and adds 2 storeys above the central academic, PE/dining wings and a portion of the vocational wing. It is projected to cost $821M. This option does satisfy the academic plan and so eligible costs would be partially reimbursable by the MSBA. The $821M figure would preserve existing non-core programming and add all the other proposed ones, but costing has been projected for HS-only and HS+existing non-core programming as well. This option requires extensive use of modular classrooms and total project time is projected at 90 months. Edgerly field and the parking setup remain unchanged.

C2.2A: Addition-renovation. This option preserves and renovates the gym and pool, while rebuilding the rest of the school. It is projected to cost $813M. This option does satisfy the academic plan and so eligible costs would be partially reimbursable by the MSBA. The $813M figure would preserve existing non-core programming and add all the other proposed ones, but costing has been projected for HS-only and HS+existing non-core programming as well. This option does not require modular classrooms, and the total project time is projected at 80 months. This option includes a track and field complex on Edgerly, and a sports field where the current parking is, while preserving the practice field at the west side of the site.

C2.2A-HS: Addition-renovation. This option preserves and renovates the gym and pool, while rebuilding the rest of the school. It is projected to cost $716M. This option does satisfy the academic plan and so eligible costs would be partially reimbursable by the MSBA. The $716M figure does not preserve any existing non-core programming, and does not include and of the proposed ones. This is an HS-only option included at the behest of the MSBA to allow more detailed costing comparisons. This option does not require modular classrooms, and the total project time is projected at 80 months. This option includes a track and field complex on Edgerly, and a sports field where the current parking is, while preserving the practice field at the west side of the site.

C3.4A: Addition-renovation. This option is similar to C2.2A, but with a different building shape and massing. It preserves and renovates the gym and pool, while rebuilding the rest of the school. It is projected to cost $817M. This option does satisfy the academic plan and so eligible costs would be partially reimbursable by the MSBA. The $716M figure would preserve existing non-core programming and add all the other proposed ones, but costing has been projected for HS-only and HS+existing non-core programming as well. This option does not require modular classrooms, and the total project time is projected at 80 months. This option includes a track and field complex on Edgerly, and a sports field where the current parking is, while preserving the practice field at the west side of the site.

D1.1: New construction. This option completely rebuilds the school on the south end of the site, and rebuilds the pool as a separate “field house” structure. It is projected to cost $766M, including the new pool ($24M), which would need to be a separate project with its own debt exclusion (the MSBA does not allow pools to be part of new construction school building projects). The reason D1.1's total cost figure is lower is primarily because of the limitations on gym size and PE spaces. The current building has substantially larger and more dedicated PE spaces which would be consolidated and downsized under the new construction plan, meaning an overall space reduction of about 30k sqft compared to the C options. This option does satisfy the academic plan and so eligible costs would be partially reimbursable by the MSBA. The $766M figure would preserve existing non-core programming and add all the other proposed ones, but costing has been projected for HS-only and HS+existing non-core programming as well. A no-pool costing option has also been presented to illustrate how much the HS debt exclusion on its own would be. This option does not require modular classrooms, and the total project time is projected at 80 months. This option includes a track and field complex on Edgerly, and a sports field and parking where the current HS building is, while preserving the practice field on the west side of the site.

You can give feedback to the SBC on these options and let them know which of the options you prefer at the link below. The survey remains open and responses are being accepted.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScsLUbCcyXcu0QajNGcRQ3bIhmHpxdM5rK8-CuOm_DId4iWtA/viewform

Finally, anyone interested in participating should join the SBC meeting next Wednesday 10 June to let their voice be heard. Public comments will be taken at the meeting, which will be in-person and on Zoom.

06/03/2026

Hi, everybody. I'm Nick. I'm a local resident, father, husband, and on my better days a chemist. I've been tuning in to the ongoing process of designing and building a new Medford High School lately, and wanted to share some of my thoughts with the broader community around this.

This process is incredibly complex and involves an enormous amount of work by dozens of experts--and I'm not one of them. I'm interested because of the impact this school will have on my kids, but also on the community as a whole. I want a great high school that serves the community, our students, and our educators for decades to come. So I'm doing my best to understand and share what I learn.

This week, the Medford High School Building Committee had a meeting where quite a few substantive items were discussed. One of the biggest ones was the potential cost impact to the City of Medfiord and its taxpayers of this project, given by Mayor Lungo-Koehn (link in comments).

This presentation looked at various build and programming scenarios, and estimated the cost that Medford would pay, after MSBA rebates (disclaimer: the rebates are not known, and won't be finalized until next April).

This was a very data- and projection-heavy presentation, which I won’t belabour here. I believe the Mayor was trying to paint a picture of the constraints that the city is working within. Cost is on everyone's mind with this project and for good reason. Construction is expensive, tax revenue is constrained by prop 2.5, the city has many other projects requiring expenditures, and voters don't have a limitless appetite for overrides and debt exclusions, so I understand where she was coming from.

What I felt, and what I saw others express at this meeting, was that simply illustrating our constraints is not enough. What people want is leadership and vision--a way to make this happen, not just excuses for why we should do less.

Apart from cuts, what does this look like? Additional revenue? Grants? Philanthropy? Relocation of some of the non-core programs to other buildings? Further negotiations with the MSBA about reimbursement rates and eligible costs? None of these were really discussed, and the only response from the Mayor when asked about this was that many cuts were proposed. That, to me, does not seem like a plan.

And that’s what I want to see from the Mayor and the City: a plan. A plan for how to enable this high school and navigate the challenges we face in doing that. A plan to balance the need for a new high school with the realities of our political and financial situation.

Leading with fear looks like trying to build the cheapest school that we can tolerate.

Leading with ambition looks like working together to get the best school we can.

And I want the Mayor, the City, the School Committee, and the School Building Committee to lead with ambition.