|
|
| |
|
Anakronism |
on 3 September 2010, at 12:23, writes: |
| |
OK, I think I got it now.
upoh's description and discussion has been relocated to the PPSchool forum. Let me know if I missed a post, but it should make more sense there. |
|
|
sigh |
on 1 September 2010, at 23:24, writes: |
| |
Seeing how Portage Path went I never once thought they would seriously consider renovation for King. I'm not usually of a conspiratorial mindset but I was 99% on those meetings being a dog and pony show for the locals. |
|
|
Anakronism |
on 27 August 2010, at 12:03, writes: |
| |
Don't tempt me. |
|
|
ygogolak |
on 27 August 2010, at 10:55, writes: |
| |
PTP,
Great letter, why not out the so called Architects as well? Things like this need to be made aware to the masses. If you had a bad pizza at a place would you tell friends not to eat pizza? or tell them not from that specific place? |
|
|
Anakronism |
on 27 August 2010, at 07:42, writes: |
| |
This is precisely what I have been saying. Quite frankly, Amy Grom, James Hardy and the architects who put the estimates together ought to be ashamed of themselves. |
|
|
PTP |
on 27 August 2010, at 07:37, writes: |
| |
Final Vote: No Renovation for King School
At the first community meeting regarding the future King School, attendees were told that both the renovation of the existing school and the replacement of the building would be considered and, either way, the community would have an excellent facility in the future. Community input would play a strong role in the renovation/replacement decision. I attended all of these meetings.
At a subsequent meeting, attendees were shown drawings of a possible renovated and expanded King School, which everyone thought looked good until the architect nonchalantly mentioned that it would cost $2.5 million more than a new school. He stated that the architects/school officials had approached the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) and obtained a ruling that the 14,000 sq. ft. basement was unusable for school use, in part due to inadequate natural light and ventilation.
It appears that option of renovating the existing school was kept open until officials received a report indicating that soil conditions were suitable for new construction. By seeking a ruling from OSFC that prevented use of the basement but still demanded that it be renovated at significant expense using local funds renovation was dealt a serious blow. It appears that the school officials made the decision to replace King and then manipulated costs to make renovation significantly more expensive than replacement. The architects portrayed the earlier PTP-commissioned study, which suggested that renovation would be nearly a million dollars cheaper, as flawed. That plan suggested uses for the basement area that did not require students to spend the entire day in the basement (i.e., cafeteria, art) and suggested that re-grading—exposing more of the south wall and installing additional windows—would deal with the natural light and ventilation concerns. Many buildings (the Cuyahoga Falls and downtown Akron Public Libraries, for example) effectively use levels that are partially below grade.
The attendees grasped the deficiencies of the existing building but could not envision a renovated building. That, coupled with the cost difference, which the architects had expanded to $3.5 million, doomed the effort to promote renovation. Unfortunately, neighborhood interest to save King, resulting in a petition effort, was too late to change the replacement decision. Following comments from PTP vice president Sarah Vradenburg, petition organizer Sally Alkire and concerned citizen John Glenn—a former attorney for the Board of Education—the School Board unanimously voted to replace King and praised the architects for their efforts. It was clear from comments from board members Amy Grom and James Hardy—who either attended King or who had children who did—that the decision was a fait accompli; that there would be no real discussion of replacement and that the community effort was considered of no importance. Again, there was no consideration of other possibilities at the board meeting; neither was there any discussion of the costs that demolition and dumping would add to the new construction budget. By exaggerating the cost of renovation so that replacement seemed like the only fiscally responsible decision, the School Board did not act in the best interest of the students or the community and their repeated claims that their decisions are “for the good of the students” ring hollow.
The other school in the earlier PTP study, the Firestone Park Elementary School, will likely suffer the same fate unless PTP members speak up much earlier and with better facts. If you would like to serve on the PTP school committee and discuss our future role in the school replacement program, please contact me by e-mail (SRNome@aol.com) or by phone (330-928-4490)
Steve Nome (President, Progress Through Preservation) |
|
|
LR |
on 26 August 2010, at 09:22, writes: |
| |
Thoughts about borrowing against the levy and then extending it to pay for safety forces and snow plowing?
See PETER and PAUL
The Staff |
|
|
LR |
on 26 August 2010, at 09:17, writes: |
| |
upoh-
You make some good points. At the same time you mention all the stairs as a bad thing, and all I hear on the news are reports that kids are too fat and get no exercise. And although we do need to meet ADA requirements, there are many ways to do that. Finally regarding the coats, I had to wear one too from time to time. Now I work in an office where no windows open, and I still have to wear one in mid-summer thanks to the "modern" HVAC while some run space heaters. I'm not sure that our "modern" building is any better than an older building with windows would be. Often I think we would use a lot less electricity when balanced over the entire year if we could open and close windows in spring and fall.
I'm sure the new building is lovely. |
|
|
Anakronism |
on 21 August 2010, at 15:35, writes: |
| |
@ upoh,
"The office for the school was located on the second floor, up a set of winding (albeit AWESOME) stairs."
Relocate the office to the main level. Keep the awesome stairs.
"The doorframes didn't meet the standard for ADA accesibility"
Replace them to conform to A.D.A.A.G.
"The Gym/Cafeteria was down more stairs"
Relocate it or use an elevator.
"The main entrance of the building was in a courtyard, to get up to the main building...more stairs"
Use/Add the/an elevator.
"I have seen places where the windows in rooms wouldn't close, or times where the kids wore their coats in class..."
This is a tough one - replace the windows w/ thermal-pane.
You can not tell me that adding an elevator and using good design would have cost more than the demolition of a complete building, Disposal of the building in a landfill, major site grading alterations, new foundation, new structural frame, new masonry closure, new roof framing etc., etc., etc.
Too expensive? Nonsense. Check your sources on who made the estimate. Then check their connection to the OSFC.
There isn't a lot more that needs to be said. |
|
|
upoh |
on 21 August 2010, at 14:18, writes: |
| |
I'm going to throw something out there...has anyone had kids go to these schools in the last 5-10 years? Have anyone volunteered? I'm not sure about King school, to be honest, but with Portage Path, the school's beautiful design was simply not practical for students of today- it wasn't ADA accessible, it had a lot of dark corners and stairs...for example:
-The office for the school was located on the second floor, up a set of winding (albeit AWESOME) stairs.
-The doorframes didn't meet the standard for ADA accesibility
-The Gym/Cafeteria was down more stairs
-The main entrance of the building was in a courtyard, to get up to the main building...more stairs
-I have seen places where the windows in rooms wouldn't close, or times where the kids wore their coats in class...
I know at one point it was discussed that the building was going to keep the 3 story front and rebuild the rest, but it was too expensive... |
|
|
Anakronism |
on 13 August 2010, at 19:31, writes: |
| |
LR is absolutely right. It is vital to hear from Highland Square residents on the design for King School.
The problem is, nobody will be listening.
I have been through this process countless times with the City of Akron and the BoE. These guys have the process down. They sit and pretend too listen to residents making requests and blowing off steam. Then they go an do as they please. Hence the earlier dog and pony show remarks.
The design for King is over. There is little left to determine other than how many ill conceived Tee-Pee pyramids go on the building. What is left to be addressed in these "design meetings" is utterly superficial. The structural frame, well crafted masonry and the rest of the work that can't be duplicated by today's building industry are gone. |
|
|
LR |
on 13 August 2010, at 11:22, writes: |
| |
It took some digging on the APS website to find out how to schedule a CLC event:
To schedule evening events at any of the CLCs, contact:
Steve Buschko
City of Akron Recreation Department
330/375-2856
This fellow should have a pretty busy job. |
|
|
|
|
