On Monday, June 1, the Board held a special meeting regarding the high school project. We went over the revised design and had the opportunity to ask questions of the architect. Please refer to the documents from the presentation here.
As I mentioned in my last post on this topic, I do like how much better the outside look of the building has improved from the original curved design presented months ago. However, over the past two weeks there have been a number of questions from the public and the Board that needed to be answered on Monday.
Let me list them in no particular order of importance:
1) Question: Did the architects plan for the moving of large musical instruments from the current pool area all the way over to the Auditorium/Little Theater Area? Did they allow for the fact that when there are performances in these areas that the students involved in these activities will need places to change and places to store equipment/clothes/personal item?
Answer: On the first question the architects responded that they will be building a large ("as large as we need it") freight elevator to move the instruments. On the second question...I don't remember hearing an answer. If someone else did, please let me know. The current spaces used as storage/changing spaces for performances are scheduled to be used as Applied Arts classroom space (see page 16 on the presentation). Is this an irreconcilable difference? Tough to tell. I have received numerous emails from parents stating that this is unacceptable and one email from a parent saying this is no big deal- that instruments are moved all the time. We do have a convoluted way of moving our instruments from one place to another now. Is it just that there was an expectation that this would be improved in this design or is this a matter that is a showstopper? I'd like some more feedback on this.
2) Question: What's up with the tennis courts?
Answer: The architects have vowed to find space for a total of 6 tennis courts. As pointed out by an experienced coach, we need to ensure that the 6 courts are located together and not across the street from one another. Having four on one side of Horsman Drive and two courts on the other would not be conducive to coaching a varsity tennis team.
3) Has there been a traffic study done on Horsman Drive to ensure that it can be a 2-way road?
Answer: No, but we expect to have one soon. For me, there is no doubt that Horsman can be made into a two way street. There is certainly space for it. But my concern is not so much for Horsman as it is for Lebanon Ave and Hollycrest Drive. Lebanon is pretty narrow at the top of the hill and I suspect that making Horsman a two way street would require the widening of Lebanon Ave from the top of the hill down to the stoplight. Hollycrest is also a very narrow residential street and one where the residents probably do not expect to have a serious increase in traffic by people/students going up their street to take a right on Horsman to drop off/pick up/park, etc. Maybe this is a municpal issue but it is a pretty serious one given the debate about traffic calming measures that have been taken by the sitting commissioners. Is this a dealbreaker? I'm not sure I can vote for this plan without a traffic study/commission meeting that says they will allow the extra traffic on those streets. Additionally, if we do need to widen the road at the top of the hill, who pays for that? If it is the District, then that cost is not included in our most recent documents.
4) What is the deal with the pool?
Answer: It appears that the Board is willing to increase the size of the pool from 6 to 8 lanes. The pool is a different animal than most of the other aspects of the school in that it is perhaps the most widely used community asset the high school has. Setting this pool up for more community use makes sense. Simply repeating the issues we have with the current pool would be a mistake. I am hopeful that the architects will take up a resident's recommendation to contact USA Swimming and talk about a design that works not only for our swim team, but for the community as well. There are plenty of examples out there of good combination community/school use pools. I believe there will be ways to reduce the cost of the pool while also building one that is a better fit for the community. Please see this link for a possible alternative. This link has also been given to our architects and design team. Here is a picture of what a possible "stretch" pool might look like. This design would not be exceptionally larger than what is currently planned.
5) Will the athletic spaces meet Title IX requirements for our student athletes?
Answer: The architects said that they would. There is a concern that, given how many student athletes we have, we would be cramming them all into small locker rooms. This is borne out by the evidence gathered by two different studies, one by Dejong and the other by RSH Architects (who were hired on behalf of the Blue Devil Club). If we are to remove the field house, we would eliminate over 20,000 square feet of field sports facility space. The new design does not make up any lack of existing space, it simply builds a newer space.
6) How much is it costing us to have a design criteria that says we are not to use temporary classrooms?
Answer: Noone knows. Director Hart first asked this question. Due to a lack of any clarity on the answer, I asked it again. I received the same answer. The architects cannot quantify how much this is costing. What is clear is that the design of this building (the "Z" shape) is predicated on not demolishing building C until the new academic wing is built. We need that classroom space if we are not to use temporary classrooms. This is the reason why the length of the building is barely shortened (another design criteria that apparently is only being mildly met by about 45 feet from one end of B Building to the far end of G Building). What would happen if we took out this single criteria? I get that there are a lot of people against temporary classrooms. Apparently people here have had negative experiences with them. As someone who grew up in temporary classrooms from 3rd grade through high school due to increasing student population and therefore demand for inexpensive additional classroom space, I can say that I really didn't care much if my class was in a well ventilated air-conditioned temporary classroom or in the main building. On hot days, it was always much better to be in the temporary room. I get that there is serious sentiment against using these classrooms here, but at what cost? The architect said that he was told to avoid temporary classrooms "at all costs". Surely, that is not a good way to think about this. At a $1 million cost? What about $5 million? What about $10 million?
To me, not knowing what "at all costs" is actually costing us is one of the reasons I am leaning towards voting against this footprint design.
As a final note, some will remember way back in January that I proposed we invest some money in the school now, pay down some debt, and plan for a major renovation/construction project for 2016-2017. I was told, as was the public, that the costs of renovating B Building alone would make this plan cost-prohibitive. In the latest architect costs, please note that B Building in now the LEAST expensive building to renovate at $127 sq/ft. Total cost of renovation of B Building is sitting at $14 million. This is much less than the $20-30 million number that was given as a deterrent to such a plan back in January.
That $14 million number is very well within the range of what I thought we could afford to do. I suggested in January that we use the Guaranteed Energy Savings Plan to invest in the existing school building which would cut the costs of this plan possibly in half and leave us with a viable option for a future new building in a few years.
Thanks for reading and please give the Board any feedback before Monday's meeting.
James
