The Observation Deck

Just a few opinions here, for what they're worth...

I'm a retired school teacher and trust me on this one. I've NEVER heard more passionate discussions than those initiated about closing schools.

For a variety of reasons, school closing discussions tap into a number of nerves, but they can also present golden opportunities.

Our school discussions have covered many aspects. Some have even wondered about whether or not there might be a "class distinction" aspect to all of this.

Well...

Let's face it, I would think that Lakewood's always had a "class distinction" question, ever since the hamlet was developed from an exclusive lake and riverside resort into a streetcar community, over a century ago. That the "class distinction" question has been subdued over the years has been due, in part, to wise and beneficient leadership on the part of a great many people. Once in awhile, these types of discussions are raised, whether for political purposes or whatever, but on the whole, both sides of Clifton Blvd. generally work pretty well together.

Part of the reason for this, is that there are multiple dynamics in play in Lakewood. Putting on my "political science" hat for a moment, I would suggest that there is no real monolithic "elite" structure in this town anyway. There is as much religious, political, and educational diversity among Lakewood's well-heeled, as there are on the southern side streets, and this diversity has served us all very well.

(For that matter, many on those southern side streets probably have MORE money than some of the newcomers on the lake do)

No, the potential closing of Grant actually taps into other discussions, if you think about it.

A vibrant city-center business area is always a plus for a city, and Grant is unfortunately smack-dab in the middle of all of that. Add to that, the fact that Grant has reportedly had to deal with asbestos abatement controversies in the past, as well as some of the obvious urban nightmare traffic issues that come with locating a school on a side street, and you have some real questions about the viability of keeping that particular building going.

This is not a new discussion either. All of this "economic development vs.the schools" discussion has happened before in Lakewood. The big, and once state-of-the-art, Wilson school once stood on Warren where the present post office (formerly, a grocery store) stood, until economic development discussions came along, way back when.

That central location was a great place for a school.

Perhaps the best thing to consider, and to my knowledge, has not yet even been proposed, would be to complete the George Washington School, as was originally planned in the 1930's.

Huh?

Yep, that big beautiful expanse of still-vacant and formerly Jared Potter Kirtland farmland is still waiting for a school to be built there.

Huh? Where?

That's the parking lot land with the temporary classrooms on it, just north of the high school.

While the "Washington School" name has a nice ring to it, I kinda like the name "Kirtland School", as it taps into old JP's heritage and the sublime environmental nature of the man. There are even a few ancient trees on some of the nearby residential properties that may or may not have been planted by him.

Now THAT'S heritage...relevant too, given our 21st century environmental concerns...

...and a win-win too for all concerned, I would think. The schools already own the land. Go ahead, close Grant, and maybe even a few others too, while you're at it. The money made on the sale of the Grant land to developers could pay for much of a new building.

Build that bright spanking-new SAFE ultra-environmentally-conscious mega-elementary in that still fairly central location on the old Kirtland land. Put Board offices over there too. Turn the original ancient 19th century Grant School (the present Board offices) into a historical destination mini-park, and there you have it!

But if this doesn't impress you, remember,

I'm just the local banjo player...hmm...better get back to it...

All, just my opinions.

Yes

A vibrant city-center business area is always a plus for a city, and Grant is unfortunately smack-dab in the middle of all of that. Add to that, the fact that Grant has reportedly had to deal with asbestos abatement controversies in the past, as well as some of the obvious urban nightmare traffic issues that come with locating a school on a side street, and you have some real questions about the viability of keeping that particular building going.

That's the parking lot land with the temporary classrooms on it, just north of the high school.

While the "Washington School" name has a nice ring to it, I kinda like the name "Kirtland School", as it taps into old JP's heritage and the sublime environmental nature of the man. There are even a few ancient trees on some of the nearby residential properties that may or may not have been planted by him.

Hello Mr. Rice,

Just wanted to make a couple of points. The north parking lot of the high school was considered and evaluated by the architect as well as the old Giant Eagle site. Both were not considered as viable sites and so we didn't look into developing these sites further.

According to the architect, Rodwell King (familiar with Lakewood and school construction) the asbestos issue at Grant is minimal and does not affect its high ranking among all of the site evaluated. Also, Vehicular Access (one of the 13 criteria set by the State) Grant ranked higher than Lincoln because it is tucked away behind the Board building and is surrounded by quiet residential streets making is much safer than Clifton Blvd. Plus, the Site Size of Grant allows for a proper parking lot and pickup/drop off area.

The BOE has said that the money is not available for relocation of the offices. So, if it will stay I personally think that there is an opportunity to have a wonderful school campus. We have the space. If the BOE is going to stay on Warren than I would rather have a school behind the Board.

As far as making money off the of Grant? Several years ago the district was offered about a half million dollars for the site (by Jacobs). On the architect's report they are allowing for $575,000.00 for the sale of Grant. Considering we estimated that each school would cost $15 million to demo/rebuild or renovate it is hardly a drop in the bucket. Not enough money from a sale to disrupt an entire neighborhood and get rid of the building that would be easiest to renovate. Mind you, Grant would not look at all as it does now with a renovation or demo/rebuild. It is a steel building making it potentially more cost effective to renovate with less surprises and it has the potential to be a greener building.

Kristine,

First of all, thank you for your involvement and caring, concerning Lakewood schools.

People who get involved in the process need to be commended for their interest, and oftentimes frustrating hard work involved.

With due consideration and respect however, I still believe that a new school needs to be built as soon as possible.

We really need NEW school buildings, whenever possible. This, I sincerely do believe.

Grant is truly a beautiful school in so many ways, and the Grant "family" is legendary. At the same time, the problems with that (or ANY old school) building must not be minimized or politicized.

Our focus, whenever possible, needs to be with safe, clean, and accessible schools.

I would be curious as to why the Kirtland site would not be more or less viable than any other, though. I would think that would be a potentially wonderful and logical site for a comprehensive Lakewood educational complex/administrative center.

A word about motivations here too. I'm not in the corner of any business interests, nor am I a supporter of keeping ANY one school open over another. As a teacher, I am solely concerned with the best interests of our children.

Again Kristine, thanks for your interest and involvement.

Back to the banjo.

We really need NEW school buildings, whenever possible. This, I sincerely do believe.

I don't disagree with you at here on this point and the Phase III Committee really only considered Grant as a demo/rebuild so it would be a brand new building. Lincoln was considered for either rebuild or renovate. The State has only approved our district
to Renovate Lincoln, Renovate Grant, and demo/Rebuild Roosevelt. Simply, I wanted to compare apples to apples and a renovate of Grant is a better choice if we had to stick with the State's plan to only renovate these schools (the State could approve us to build new).

The reasons listed that the lot you are referring to wouldn't' work were:

The need for modular classrooms which would be needed past the time completion of the elementary schools

Only one driving access

Interference with high school students coming and going (I think meaning the need for the parking)

The lot did have some positives such as site size, initial cost good. It did rate poor to fair with most of the other criteria like site preparation, adjacent property, green design, and site configuration. However, it as least made the list for sites that would be suitable. Lincoln was the only site that didn't make the cut for this list (not suitable).

I hope more information helps. I just want you to know that the lot was considered, evaluated by the architect, and discussed in length.

Kristine,

Thank you for providing the additional information.

It is so sad to me that so much of public school planning (and not necessarily with Lakewood) seems to be so often knee-jerk and stop-gap in character, when there appears to be far better solutions available with strategic (as opposed to tactical) long-term planning.

Cosmetically rebuilding schools may not get rid of many inherent or even dangerous old-building problems, nor do I think that it necessarily helps to enhance community property values nearly like new schools do.

As for the Kirtland land, I would certainly imagine that additional access could easily be made through Parkview or even Bunts if needed. The modular classroom situation could certainly be worked around, (that's why they are modular, after all) as could student traffic issues.

Sincerely though, thanks for your clarification.

Your Welcome.

It is so sad to me that so much of public school planning (and not necessarily with Lakewood) seems to be so often knee-jerk and stop-gap in character, when there appears to be far better solutions available with strategic (as opposed to tactical) long-term planning.

Again, don't disagree with you. I would say that many felt the same way about Kaufmann Park.