Central Middle School Replacement — Greenwich, Connecticut

Greenwich, Connecticut replaced its 1958 Central Middle School with a new 135,000-sq-ft building on the same campus, delivered under a $112 million total appropriation. Turner Construction ran construction management. The school opened to students at the end of August 2026.

Project Scope

The project demolished the original 1958 structure and built a new 135,000-sq-ft middle school designed to exceed Connecticut sustainability standards, with energy-efficient mechanical systems, upgraded electrical and plumbing infrastructure, and a rooftop photovoltaic array generating power on site.

The Central Middle School Building Committee was seated in July 2022 against a total appropriation of $112,017,000. In January 2025 the committee finalized a guaranteed maximum price contract with Turner at $93,587,800, coming in more than $4.1 million under the $97,705,000 projection. That savings moved the contingency from 3% to 6%. Construction started later that month.

Why It Matters

A GMP landing under projection in a market defined by materials inflation and labor scarcity is worth noting on its own. It also demonstrates the practical value of front-loading design and preconstruction with the CM at risk: the committee bought schedule certainty and a bigger contingency in the same move.

For Connecticut districts weighing renovate-versus-replace on mid-century school stock, Greenwich is a useful data point. Buildings from that era carry accessibility, envelope and mechanical deficiencies that rarely pencil as a renovation once code-triggered upgrades are priced. Greenwich chose full replacement and opened on schedule four years after seating the committee.

The delivery model is worth spelling out. Greenwich ran the job as construction manager at risk, bringing Turner in during design and converting to a guaranteed maximum price once drawings were far enough along to price with confidence. The building committee, made up of financial executives, attorneys, construction professionals and town agency representatives, held schedule and budget authority throughout.

Site constraints shaped the sequence as much as the program did. Demolishing the 1958 building and constructing its replacement on the same campus meant keeping students in the old school while the new one went up, then taking the original structure down afterward. That phasing adds cost and calendar on nearly every occupied-campus school replacement, and it is the main reason these projects run three to four years rather than two.

Project Team & Details