image description — The playground at Williamstown Elementary School was threatened to be uprooted by the Williamstown Youth Center's revised plans.

Williamstown Debates Elementary School Playground

Andy McKeeveriBerkshires Staff
02:37PM / Saturday, November 20, 2010Print Story | Email Story

A 13-member subcommittee developed plans to keep the main playground structure in place but the swings still need to be moved. The white line marks the proposed footprint for the new youth center.

Update: A public forum seeking additional public input will be held on Monday, Nov. 29 at the school at 7 p.m.

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — A playground subcommittee will present new plans for the Williamstown Youth Center, approved to be built on Williamstown Elementary School property, to keep the playground from being relocated.

The 13-member subcommittee met Thursday afternoon with Black River Design, the engineering firm hired to plan the site, and developed three options that keep the main structure of the playground intact but move the swing sets. The solutions centered around repositioning the playing fields.

Formed after opposition to redeveloped building plans that moved the playground triggered a lengthy discussion at the last School Committee meeting, the subcommittee consisted of representatives for a variety of interests — from the sports groups using the fields to property abutters to teachers.

"Everybody wants this to work for the community," Williamstown Youth Center Executive Director David Rempell said. "The subcommittee has the charge of coming up with some viable options."

Citing deplorable conditions at the current center, the youth center originally proposed a two-story building positioned next to the elementary school but later revised plans to a one-story structure with a larger footprint. The one-story building plans called for uprooting the playground. Officials say the plans were changed for greater energy efficiency and easier supervision of the children.

Opponents expressed concern about safety, aesthetics, supervision and usage time of the fields, which caused the project to slow down and there is a possibility to delay construction.

"The building committee of the youth center is basically taking a time out," Rempell said. "There is a distinct possibility that we won't break ground in June because we are revisiting these issues."

The subcommittee will submit its findings on Monday, Nov. 29 — one day before the School Committee votes on the final plans. The school does not have to accept the recommendations.

After expressing each member's concerns the group discussed multiple options including shrinking the size of the building and changing its layout. The group even tried negotiating.

"If we get lights at Bud Anderson field we could get rid of one of our fields," Jeff Meehan, representing Cal Ripken Baseball, said.

In the end, using cutouts and blueprints, the subcommittee decided that it was not reasonable to keep the playground exactly the way it is but the main structure could be kept by repositioning where each field is located on the grounds. All costs will be absorbed by the youth center, which has raised nearly $3.5 million through the "Together We Can" campaign for the new building.

"Right now the playground is a community gathering place and we want to maintain that sense," Principal Stephen Johnson said.

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

Care Closer to Home!

North Adams Regional Hospital is North Berkshire's choice for healthcare services - Your Hospital!

www.berkshirehealthsystems.org

RIBCO Supply

Check out our great lineup of Boss Plows, and spreaders. 2 Locations Clarksburg & Pittsfield!

ribcosupply.com

Peak Rate CD

Lock in your savings now with our 6-month CD. Click to learn more! Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Your Comments

iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.

There never was a plan for a two story building. What people are referring to was a conceptual drawing. Once the school committee issued its RFP, the actual plan was drawn to those specifications, which included energy efficiency, etc... and THAT is how the footprint for the building became 40% larger than was originally anticipated. As for the playground, even under the mythical two story building, it would have been moved. This is a total red herring. If the NIMBYs who are upset about the building design muddy the water enough, it will delay the project by a year because construction has to begin during a summer break. And IF the delay is significant, it may jeopardize one of the major gifts ($1 million) that has a time frame on it. This is about a few people who always opposed the project and see a second chance, combined with a few people who always think they know better than the common folk and want their fingers in the pie. (Perhaps this is why people were - all of a sudden - suggesting that Williams, The Clark and Mass MoCA should consult on the design? If the Paresky Center or the Clark's additions are any indication, their collective design judgement is less than stellar.) Just build that damn thing like we voted on, and ordered you to do, at Town Meeting two years ago. This is getting stupid.
from: Not Quite	on: 11-21-2010 11:00PM I Agree (29) - I Disagree (22)

“There never was a plan for a two-story building” is true. There was however a concept for a building that respected the architectural integrity of its adjacent buildings, took up a small footprint thereby maximizing green space, and appeared to be a natural appendage to the elementary school. The number of stories is not the point. The point is that people pledged money partly because it looked like such a natural fit that it belonged there. To say it was ‘just an idea” is true, but good ideas raise money, garner support, and open doors. Bad ideas, like the current proposal that splits the field, destroys the playground, detracts from the beauty of the school, and doesn’t make sense to anyone outside the inner circle of the youth center, tends to create controversy. Did the RFP say to make as large a presence on the most active piece of the property with the most dramatically different building materials from existing structures as possible? Did it say to uproot the playground for $30K of donated money? Why continue to point to the RFP as if it is law when the youth center’s application that came two months later promised a brick façade, 12,000 square feet, and only some of the playground moved to the other side of the existing playground? This is the application that won approval and the departure from it is what is controversial. If what went into the application was not a firm idea how do you expect the winning of the proposal to be firm? Couldn’t you just as easily say that winning was “conceptual”? Throwing around bumper sticker sized names like NIMBY, know-it-all, and hater may rally the increasingly shrinking inner circle where admitting mistakes could be seen as weakness but the fact that mistakes can’t be admitted to is telling. The two year schedule was for fundraising, not because of opposition. The fundraising is now five months later than promised and with all the name calling will likely be further derailed. How can they expect to run an organization when half of the future members are mad before the doors open? Perhaps there is one name that we do deserve to be called. That word is gullible. We were naïve to believe that the youth center team would act the same way after they raised $3 million as they had before raising $3 million. Please forgive us for taking their winning ideas as executable promises. People are genuinely upset because there was a bait and switch. Nobody likes bait and switch. If there are good reasons for it, let’s hear them instead of demonizing sensible people who believe that non-profits are not automatically entitled to public land grants but must carefully earn them. Perhaps if they weren’t so paranoid about opening up the floodgates of discourse, they could get back to doing what the people ordered two years ago, getting a sensible and sustainable youth center built on school grounds that respects its aesthetic, functional, and cultural environment.
from: quite	on: 11-24-2010 11:32PM I Agree (12) - I Disagree (18)

"People are genuinely upset." All 15 or 20 of them. Unfortunately that group includes at least one member of the school committee (who considers herself an expert at everything and knows how to work the media) and several NIMBYs (yes, there is that dreaded word, but the majority who spoke against the center were, indeed, residents of Church, School or Southworth streets) who have the ear of two other committee members. It is a very small group making a very loud noise, acting as though the new youth center was a nuclear waste dump. Most of them would never consider sending their children to "daycare". So it is no skin of their nose if it takes another decade to get this done. I hope you are happy when this whole project blows up because that is probably what is going to happen when you send the youth center back to the drawing board. Congrats in advance. It will be your fault.
from: Not Quite	on: 11-25-2010 06:46PM I Agree (17) - I Disagree (12)

Quite's comments about strong "bumper sticker" language are a bit odd considering she or he is using terms like bait and switch, which, when applied in certain cases, is actually a crime. And where did the term "hater" come from? The only time I've heard that recently was from Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars. Based upon the drawings that the school has put on their web site, nobody is splitting the playing fields. That is simply not true. For all the lobbying that those who oppose the proposed design have done, I have heard a lot more resentment towards the "anti" crowd than I have seen movement in their direction. And I would agree that several "know it alls", again, not a term used in the first post, have decided that they should have been on the design and finance committees of the Youth Center from the beginning. I am not saying the Youth Center shouldn't make some concessions if needed, but it seems very clear that the anti's want everything on the table thrown away and clean slate to start over.
from: Patch	on: 11-26-2010 02:57PM I Agree (15) - I Disagree (8)

Vice Chair Vote Highlights Fissure on Williamstown Select Board

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
05:46AM / Wednesday, November 20, 2024

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — A seemingly mundane decision about deciding on a board officer devolved into a critique of one member's service at Monday's Select Board meeting.

The recent departure of Andrew Hogeland left vacant the position of vice chair on the five-person board. On Monday, the board spent a second meeting discussing whether and how to fill that seat for the remainder of its 2024-25 term.

Ultimately, the board voted, 3-1-1, to install Stephanie Boyd in that position, a decision that came after a lengthy conversation and a 2-2-1 vote against assigning the role to a different member of the panel.

Chair Jane Patton nominated Jeffrey Johnson for vice chair after explaining her reasons not to support Boyd, who had expressed interest in serving.

Patton said members in leadership roles need to demonstrate they are "part of the team" and gave reasons why Boyd does not fit that bill.

Patton pointed to Boyd's statement at a June 5 meeting that she did not want to serve on the Diversity, Inclusion and Racial Equity Committee, instead choosing to focus on work in which she already is heavily engaged on the Carbon Dioxide Lowering (COOL) Committee.

"We've talked, Jeff [Johnson] and I, about how critical we think it is for a Select Board member to participate in other town committees," Patton said on Monday. "I know you participate with the COOL Committee, but, especially DIRE, you weren't interested in that."

View Full Story