PHASE 3 INFO AT BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING - TONIGHT 7 PM

[Danielle Masters]

Ryan, Meg replied in another thread, yes Lincoln would be rebuilt not renovated.

[Bill Trentel]

At the November BOE meeting the districts architect consultant presented rough outlines of each of the two locations in question. He said that the use of either site would require a totally new building. The small Lincoln site would require a three story building and would need to be placed off center on the site in-order to achieve the require amount outdoor play/activity space. His drawings indicated that 4 homes would need to be acquired, 2 on Summit and 2 on Lakeland to make the site large enough. Additionally he mentioned that construction logistics would be a challenge at the Lincoln site due to the lack of space to stage materials and place construction trailers and equipment. His Grant location drawings did not indicate the need for any additional property and the building would be two story. The size of the site would allow more flexibility in the design and placement of the building.

Bill

[Kristine Pagsuyoin]

Danielle,

I haven't read Meg's post in awhile, but I just wanted to post a reminder that the State approved Lincoln for a renovation, Grant for a renovation, and Roosevelt for demolish/rebuild. If we decided to rebuild Grant or Lincoln than the State would have to approve that. They will not approve Roosevelt for a renovation. Any changes have to be negotiated with the State and approved to get the money we want. So, they may not necessarily approve a demolish/rebuild of Grant or Lincoln even if we want that as a community.

That is...if nothing has changed since we submitted our report in October.

Kristine

[marklingm]

Kristine,

Ryan, Danielle, Meg, and Bill are correct inasmuch as Lincoln would need to be a “rebuild” for various reasons if that site is determined to be in the best interest of the Lakewood City Schools.

See http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8797.

Matt

[Jim O'Bryan]

I am sorry, kind of lost track of this thread while we were talking about LA bringing
Quaker Steak and Lube with Bike Night and Bikini contest to "DowntowN" Lakewood.

But one of the things I think is important is - was PhaseIII a continuation of the
50-Year-Committee, and their opinion that schools should be closed for economic
development.

Of course this decision was made with Jay Foran conducting the process, and he is the
founder of LakewoodAlive and their mission statement of "educating the residents of the
need for economic development." While also working with the First Tier Suburbs Consortium
and representing schools and later the regionalization firm Team Neo. Seems like a really
bad conflict of interest, but if we can trade in a good school serving the center of the city for
Bikini Contests, I can see the reasoning. Young women need job opportunities too.

I have no kids in schools and love Lakewood Schools, my only "dog" in this fight is asking
people to sit through 9 months of meetings for something that was "possibly" predetermined.

PASS THE LEVY, FINISH THE HIGH SCHOOL


.

[marklingm]

But one of the things I think is important is - was Phase III a continuation of the 50-Year-Committee....

Of course this decision was made with Jay Foran conducting the process, and he is the founder of LakewoodAlive and their mission statement of "educating the residents of the need for economic development."

Jim,

The LakewoodAlive Board of Directors (including Chas Geiger), Executive Director Mary Anne Crampton, Marketing & Development Director Shannon C. Strachan, and Housing Outreach Director Hiliary Schickler have made no attempts to influence my decision with respect to Phase III.

I can say that the original recommendation of the 50 Year Committee has no impact on my Phase III decision as the Board has taken a “clean slate approach,” which has been confirmed and endorsed by Jay Foran himself:

As you know, the state has indicated a willingness to only fund six elementary schools at this time.

Once that information was obtained, the Board properly made the decision to wipe the slate clean and reassess the original recommendation of the 50 Year Committee. Thus, Lincoln, Grant and Roosevelt were put in play as sites to consider.

I, like most other committee members, fully support the clean slate approach.

http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8479&p=64281#p64281

Matt

[Colleen Wing]

Finishing the High School has nothing to do with passing the levy. That is the bond issue.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim,

The LakewoodAlive Board of Directors (including Chas Geiger), Executive Director Mary Anne Crampton, Marketing & Development Director Shannon C. Strachan, and Housing Outreach Director Hiliary Schickler have made no attempts to influence my decision with respect to Phase III.

I can say that the original recommendation of the 50 Year Committee has no impact on my Phase III decision as the Board has taken a “clean slate approach,” which has been confirmed and endorsed by Jay Foran himself:

As you know, the state has indicated a willingness to only fund six elementary schools at this time.

Once that information was obtained, the Board properly made the decision to wipe the slate clean and reassess the original recommendation of the 50 Year Committee. Thus, Lincoln, Grant and Roosevelt were put in play as sites to consider.

I, like most other committee members, fully support the clean slate approach.

http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8479&p=64281#p64281

Matt

Matt

And to your knowledge, none have attempted in anyway with other members of the
board, or yourself, ever. During this deliberation, after or during Phase III, or currently?

While you have said, none, have made you decide. Has anyone board, administrators, other
parties every indicate any form on pressure on you or other board members to your knowledge?

.

[Dustin James]

Forgive me. I’m a lurker, or a troll or perhaps as a much nicer description, an observer.

I pop in from time to time for a glimpse at a place I grew up called Lakewood. I don’t even pretend to be up to date on all the drama, demographic and socio-economic shifts that have happened in the last 32 years since leaving.

I went to McKinley Elementary, Horace Mann Junior High and LHS. What I get from the gist of the conversations is that folks are concerned about safety (how far children have to go to school), cost (how much schools cost to build, close, move, operate, etc.) and adherence to Phases or 50 year plans (a half century plan!).

I’m not really quite through being gone a half century, but I’m guessing that kind of a plan is folly, when we all live in a time, accelerating beyond anything imaginable just ten years ago. Folly only because of the very reasons described, shifting and unpredictable needs.

What do children need in order to learn? Could it be the classic architecture of Horace Mann, Grant, Roosevelt and Lincoln? It’s probably not that important. It is important to have space, climate control, good light and structure. LHS slapped on a modern appendage in the late 60’s because it could and it had to, but it didn’t need to go anywhere. Older children could come to it.

If you talk to kids, they don’t care about what the school looks like. They barely care at all about school. That is one thing that hasn’t changed in all these years.

But what if they did care? What if they LIKED the schools visually and experientially?

What if the residents and school board became really smart about this and put Lakewood on the map nationally? Easily handling whatever shift the economy or demographics could come up with for the next 50+ years?

What if it was as easy and cheap to put up 3-5 more schools to add to the 6 you have?

Maybe the daunting assumptions of cost and complexity are based on the traditional, expensive ways that schools have been built in the past?

One more question. Could it be a vision challenge?

http://designcrave.com/2009-06-22/10-brilliant-boxy-and-sustainable-shipping-container-homes/

Shipping containers are abundant and built like tanks. With creative architects, they can be configured, welded, sliced and combined into anything a school could possibly need. At 40 ft. x 10ft wide each, they can have windows, stairs, atrium's, skylights, the works and combined into nearly any design.

container_edu_green.jpg (48.97 KiB) Viewed 2089 times

A big container can be had for $7000. If purchased in bulk, far less. It does not take too much math to figure out how much $1 million would buy. Consider where the rest of the traditional budget could go for land purchase, interior design and equipment, landscape and exterior design (yes the boxy corrugation can be painted, surfaced and adorned in many ways). You’d have money left over and be up and running in a year flat per school.

container_edu.jpg (55.34 KiB) Viewed 2089 times

Is it about the kids, or the adults? Survey a few hundred kids with pictures of a custom container complex and ask if they would dig going to school in one. Would they dig going to a school in something so unique they felt like it was theirs? Guess what they’d say?

What about the neighbors – not in my back yard syndrome?

These could be built to look so cool and so invisible, they would not care. Show them very detailed 3D renderings of what each would look like beforehand. Get their input. You could pop small ones into residential neighborhoods and no one would care because they looked great.

Imagine a community that seamlessly integrated custom-fit education facilities into neighborhoods wherever they were needed? Without the incredible overhead that is being discussed?

Could it be a vision challenge?

.

[Dustin James]

Other links of interest. I would caution against taking these literally, as for instance the colors might be seen as too wild. Any combination of color and aesthetic can be applied and worked out on miniatures or 3D models before committing. The real point is recycled and abundant materials that can be configured and constructed to create even large spaces, such as the sports hall in the second and third links. The amount of dedicated space for construction is also far reduced and modular. Might be worth talking to an architect that embraces this methodology or Clicky: Urban Space Management Consulting

http://www.containercity.com/morpeth-school.html

http://www.containercity.com/Dunraven-Sports-Hall.html

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3142518

..."Commissioned by London Borough of Lambeth with funding from the 'Building Schools for the Future' scheme this innovative approach to building and commitment to sustainability was rewarded by being the 'Best Small Building Project' at the prestigious Building Industry Construction Awards in 2009.

“The Sports Hall has surpassed our expectations. The building is a real landmark and a source of pride for our community as much as it is for us. We chose the container solution because we were keen to respond to our students’ interest in the environment and issues of sustainability as well as to provide value for money given a very limited budget. The speed of construction was an added bonus, Students and staff have been delighted by the building’s striking appearance. We now have an outstanding facility for our young people.” —David Boyle, Principal

Dunraven_333_ready.jpg (125.22 KiB) Viewed 2039 times

Dunraven_452_ready.jpg (105.56 KiB) Viewed 2039 times

Dunraven_345_ready.jpg (116.96 KiB) Viewed 2039 times

[Meg Ostrowski]

Dustin, Thanks for sharing your perspective and the container movement. I like the idea of flexibility in uncertain and lean times.

For those of you still interested in seeing this process through, it looks like the BOE will be discussing this subject at their regular meeting tonight, 7:00 p.m. in the Board Auditorium.

From the Lakewood City Schools website;

PHASE III TO BE DISCUSSED AT FEB. 1 BOARD MEETING
The Board of Education meeting on Feb. 1 will include discussion of Phase III, however no decision will be made on a school closing at this time. The meeting will also include an update on the forthcoming levy.