0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You should see the people who design those jail-like suburban schools.....oh the stories I could tell.What a shame though. I wonder who salvaged/purchased the pediment.
That school is hideous and very suburban. I'm completely shocked that's on a website portfolio.
Notice how many of the new schools sit far back from the street and have space for cars in front...they're not designed to have kids walk to school anymore.
And what is so much better about that school that justifies 6.5 million taxpayer dollars? Do the students actually perform any better?
There also are many instances where renovating the old school would have been cheaper, but instead the people wanted a new, ugly building to pretend like they're improving education.
There is inherent bias against the old school buildings.
Also, how can a state as economically destroyed as Ohio justify this absurd rebuilding program?
B. We spends millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars building ugly crap that we'll want to tear down in 20 years anyway.
C. The performance of the students doesn't change.
The Ohio School Facilities Commission had as advisors too many former superintendents now on the payroll of architects/engineers and came up with ridiculous standards that were blatantly biased against renovation and in favor of cheap new-build. Then the state dangled money in front of desperate districts and coerced them into using these deeply flawed -- and perhaps corrupt -- standards.
I also have to disagree that the state has some hidden agenda to make all their new schools bland and prison-like. Here is our Harding Elementary School page:http://www.olsjam.com/portfolio/PK-12/harding_elem/harding_elem.htmI don't think these colors are very bland.That school is hideous and very suburban. I'm completely shocked that's on a website portfolio. It just proves my point. The state (sounds like both politicians and regular citizens) wants suburban crap. Notice how many of the new schools sit far back from the street and have space for cars in front...they're not designed to have kids walk to school anymore. They're designed more like a McDonald's. They're cartoonish. The elementary schools today look more like suburban doctor's offices than places of learning (the high schools are more jail-like, complete with the high tech security and all).If kids feel like they're going to the dentist's office every morning, they're not going to be happy students. And what is so much better about that school that justifies 6.5 million taxpayer dollars? Do the students actually perform any better?The last thing to keep in mind is that most communities don't WANT flashy, architecturally significant buildings. I've talked with many people who want their schools to be as bland and have a few frills as possible. If the architects designing the schools actually provided something great, the community would throw a hissy-fit because of all the money that was "wasted."There also are many instances where renovating the old school would have been cheaper, but instead the people wanted a new, ugly building to pretend like they're improving education.
So why is the Woodward rebuild the exception to the rule these days? Why can't the other new school buildings follow this land use principle? Congrats to Collaborative Inc. for at least maintaining urbanity. Still, the old school looked a hell of a lot more attractive than the new one...
2. While the Ohio School Facilities Commission did make a public stance change from the “2/3 rule” to a “2/3” guideline, we have been told that it has continued to make renovations difficult to pursue. Traditional unfounded biases against preservation persist. Almost no Districts have chosen renovation of traditional buildings.
3. I served for a time on a panel that recommended changes to those guidelines to the current administration. At the very first meeting of that panel, the head of the OSFC announced that he thought that as a rule all traditional buildings were poorly suited for modern educational needs.
4. In that same meeting, he shared his hope that the OSFC process would remain a permanent part of state government, as the current buildings have life expectancies which are substantially less than many of the buildings which they are replacing.
5. The OSFC subsidizes demolition for replaced buildings, removing potential taxpayer assets at taxpayer expense.6. In the case of the Galion buildings, the District turned down at least $100,000 on the table for one building -- and not only never advertised the buildings for sale, they were never appraised. At least one developer had previously valued one of the District’s buildings at $300,000 to $400,000 for adaptive reuse. The net loss to the District was at least $500,000, with a much greater loss long-term.
8. The pediment of the building was saved to be placed onto the façade of a hoped-for future auditorium. The demolition itself removed a turn-key auditorium that had been maintained for 90 years. Even before the recent economic crisis, the best scenario for such a new auditorium was 5-10 years away. Now, the most likely scenario is that more than a decade of Galion students will not have the benefit of performing arts facilities.
10. The beautiful former Bucyrus High School, built in the early 1920s, will open this coming Fall as the new Bucyrus Elementary School. When the time came for deciding the direction of their building program, the community told their Board of Education, "We don't want to be another Galion!" When that building opens, it will be just as technologically-equipped and "modern" as the cement block facilities rising in Ohio farmfields.
I'm sorry to keep dragging this out. I'm just offering my perspective from the other side. I hate to see old buildings like Gallion HS (or Warren Harding HS in Warren) get torn down for a new building of lesser quality, just like everyone else here.Renovating Chaney HS was a real big PITA. For example, when they removed the old windows, they had to abate the asbestos in the CAULKING! All of the floor tile had to be removed by an asbestos crew. And, believe it or not, this school already went through an asbestos removal program in the past. This was just the stuff that was deemed safe the first time. (because it wasn't going to be disturbed) People these days panic easily when they hear the word "asbestos" so that's probably one of the reasons so few schools are renovated.
This is only a guess, but he was probably referring to classroom size.(among other things) The standard classroom size today is 900 SF. But, they are often smaller in older buildings.
As I said earlier, these new buildings are only expected to last 50 years before needing replaced.
There is some sort of state law that, when a district sells a building, they have to offer the building to Charter schools first. Obviously, charter schools are financially damaging to state run districts, so it's often better for the districts to just demo the building and try to sell or reuse the land. The OSFC subsidizes demolition to prevent a district from being stuck with a vacant building. There were old schools in Youngstown that had sat vacant for years before the city finally razed them because the district couldn't afford to.
As I think you're aware, the WHHS auditorium was supposed to be saved. But, the district decided that the "cafetorium" was good enough, and didn't want to be saddled with the additional maintenance the original auditorium would require. So, the district compromised and made sure no one would be happy. They saved the facade and removed the auditorium. Now they have a building that they still have to maintain, and it's completely useless.
Yes, it can be done. I just wish it would be done more often. But, many people in Ohio still think new is better.
This is more or less what I was saying from the start. I just disagree that it's on purpose. Every OSFC school, whether urban, suburban, or rural, has to follow the same guidlines--like area of playgrounds, sports fields, vehicular access, etc.Fair enough. I just think there is a very suburban mentality dominating the entire discussion. There's no reason they could not at least have the new schools interact with the street. All blacktop could be put behind the school, etc. What is so wrong with kids walking to school? Is our society just ready to throw in the towel on that? I think back to the old Bowsher High School in Toledo. It was an ugly 70's-looking building, but it still interacted with South Detroit Avenue. There was no blacktop in front of the school. By contrast, the new Bowsher High School (which actually does look better in terms of architecture) has blacktop in front. There was a different mentality at work in terms of land use. Most of the design and land use principles have gone out the window. Luckily, the TPS rebuild hasn't been as bad as in other cities in Ohio. While it sucks Woodward High lost its historic building, the new one at least maintains urbanity. It's being built to the street, and there's no parking in front. There are good sidewalks in front of the school promoting pedestrian activity. There's no reason other new school buildings can't follow this principle.The building itself can't hold a candle to the one it's replacing, but at least the new Woodward is still functionally urban:So why is the Woodward rebuild the exception to the rule these days? Why can't the other new school buildings follow this land use principle? Congrats to Collaborative Inc. for at least maintaining urbanity. Still, the old school looked a hell of a lot more attractive than the new one...