Show the Work: New Construction vs. Rehabilitation

Before We Consider New Buildings, Show the Work

Analytical rigor matters.  Before residents are asked to weigh in on options for municipal facilities, there is a basic prerequisite: the evidence that justifies new construction over rehabilitation should be made available for public scrutiny.

Without that, the conversation risks starting with conclusions rather than facts.

What Residents Should Have Before the Workshop

Renovating older, heavily used buildings is not unusual.  It happens every day in both the public and private sectors.  Aging, inefficient, “dilapidated” structures are routinely modernized through phased construction, structural reinforcement, and energy upgrades.

Choosing not to renovate may be the right answer, but it isn’t a self-evident one.

If the goal of the upcoming workshop is meaningful public input, then residents should have access to the same baseline information decision-makers have relied on. At a minimum, that should include:

• Independent engineering assessments of existing municipal facilities.

• Cost-based renovation and phased-upgrade scenarios vs. new construction.

• Environmental and sustainability impacts of each option.

Without this, residents aren't being asked for informed input.  They’re being asked for reactions.

Sustainability Matters:  What is the Greener Choice?

Any serious discussion of municipal facilities should include environmental impact.

From a sustainability perspective, rehabilitating existing buildings can be significantly greener than new construction.  Reuse avoids the embodied carbon of demolition, concrete, steel, and new materials; costs that are front-loaded and irreversible.

In many cases:

• Retrofitting systems dramatically reduces energy use.

• Electrification and envelope upgrades extend building life.

• Phased improvements align spending with actual need.

If Montclair is serious about its climate and sustainability goals, these considerations should be explicitly analyzed and disclosed; not treated as secondary or assumed away.

A “green” new building is still carbon-intensive to build.  That tradeoff deserves daylight.

Process Matters as Much as Outcomes

This is not an argument against new construction.  It is an argument for sequencing, transparency, and analytical rigor.

If engineering and cost analyses show that renovation isn’t feasible or is irresponsible, residents should be able to see that clearly.  If they show that renovation is viable but inconvenient, that deserves an honest debate.

What undermines the public trust is skipping this analysis and asking the public to opine after expectations have already been set.

Set the Table Before Asking for Input

Before the workshop, residents should be given the information necessary to engage in good faith:

• Evidence before opinions

• Analysis before conclusions

• Options before momentum

We should see this work before anything else. Without it, jumping directly to new construction isn't a conclusion supported by evidence.  It’s a guess.

But Let's Take a Step Back

Before debating siting and design or new vs. rehab, Montclair should be clear about something more foundational: what do we actually need?