Opinion: School Construction Time and Campus Disruption Could be Cut in Half
A Costly MistakeOn November 8, 2016, following a well-orchestrated campaign, 73% of Piedmont voters supported a $66 million bond issue to modernize and add classrooms to the high school campus, which includes the Millennium High School.
Subsequently, the Board approved selection of an architectural firm (HKIT) and proceeded with a plan focusing on two major projects: a new STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics) Building that is expected to cost $37.5 million, and a new Alan Harvey Theater costing $16.3 million. Together these projects, including necessary demolition, account for 81.5% of the $66 million bond and will take about three years to complete, during which time the schools will be without a theater. The STEAM building includes 19 classrooms, and the theater adds a drama classroom. Eight existing classrooms will be demolished, so the net gain will be 12 new classrooms, a 30% increase in the number of classrooms but with no new teachers added and only a modest increase projected in high school enrollment. The balance of the bond money will be spent on modernizing existing classrooms and other needed improvements on the campus.
In sequence, the approved plan is to demolish the theater in the summer of 2020, and construct a new three-story STEAM building on its site. When STEAM is completed, the existing Administration Building will be demolished, and a replacement theater with a drama classroom will be constructed on its site.
Well before the election, Superintendent Booker established a Facilities Steering Committee to report directly to him. This committee, a mix of school staff and Piedmont residents, reviewed the Facilities Master Plan prepared by QKA Architects that included a list of needed school projects that totaled an estimated $137 million, twice the district’s current bonding capacity. Hence, the list had to be cut in half. The committee then decided that the highest priority should be given to the high school and its need for more and better classrooms. After thoughtful deliberation, the committee decided on three site plan options for consideration, and these were the only options open for discussion at three Town Hall Meetings held in April, 2017.
At some point in the process, the committee was told, mistakenly in my opinion, that if the Administration building was demolished before the STEAM building was completed, the high school could not function without first installing eight portable classrooms at a cost of $5 million. This effectively eliminated one of the three options, and ultimately led to the Board’s adopted plan. Board President Sarah Pearson said, “One of the reasons rebuilding a new theater [on the site of the Administration building] became such an attractive option was because of the cost of interim housing and not having much space. It was the most pragmatic decision — not to put money in portables.”
The fact is that a careful review of the high school teachers and their assigned classrooms showed that the school could function perfectly well without the need for costly portables during construction.
My detailed analysis found that of the 39 designated classrooms, eight in the Administration Building are nearly fully utilized, but the remaining 31 are typically underutilized. In fact, one designated classroom is now being used for storage and another for school publications. There would be some minor inconveniences, but these are far outweighed by the multiple advantages of constructing a new STEAM building on the site of the existing Administration Building, and a new or revamped theater at its present location.
Total construction time and campus disruption would be cut in half from 3 to 1.5 years, a significant saving in construction cost escalation.Moreover, there is no immediate need to replace the theater. ADA access and other suggested improvements could be made at a cost of less than $10 million. Only minor structural upgrade is needed. If theater replacement is deferred until additional bonding capacity is available, first phase funds would be available to address the much-needed Middle School upgrades, a rational trade-off.
In December 2017, I sent an e-mail to the Board and staff outlining in detail how this could be accomplished. To date, I have received no substantive reply, except a comment by Dr. Pearson that it is too late to make these changes. I do not believe this. It took only about 4 months for the construction documents for the Alan Harvey Theater to be prepared in 2014. Similarly, HKIT could most assuredly revise the construction documents needed for the two buildings in a relatively short period of time. They would not be starting from scratch. Even if the two projects have already been submitted to the State Division of Architects — and I don’t know that they have— it is not too late to consider revisiting the issue and make these siting improvements given the multiple advantages of time and cost.
William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident
While Mr. Blackwell is a knowledgeable and experienced architect, he is not qualified as an educator or even as someone with experience in operating a high school to conclude as he does:
The fact is that a careful review of the high school teachers and their assigned classrooms showed that the school could function perfectly well without the need for costly portables during construction.
Do we really want “unqualified” residents dictating how our schools are to be operated against the advice of the trained professionals who we have?
What are Mr. Blackwell’s qualifications to opine as to how well the high school could operate with 8 fewer classrooms? And if we followed his advice, and stuffed students into closets rather than classrooms, who would face the parents criticisms over why their kids educational experience was ruined?
By the way, I don’t think that the Alan Harvey construction documents were DSA approved.
I appreciate your comments, Rob, but you must not realize that Bill Blackwell has had many years of experience as a highly-respected architect, and his comments regarding re-evaluating the prioritizing and sequencing of planned school construction projects merit serious consideration. He is not an “unqualified resident,” as you suggest. After all, if it’s possible to cut the duration, and thus the cost, of planned construction from three years to a year and a half, even if there is some inconvenience, this most definitely warrants serious consideration. Time equals money in construction, and I believe the citizens of Piedmont don’t want to squander money.
As architects, we’re trained to question and continuously re-evaluate whether the solutions that have been proposed are the best solutions, which is what we should be doing now, before any construction begins.
I encourage the Board to seriously consider the analysis brought forth by Bill Blackwell regarding the phasing and prioritizing of the upcoming school construction projects. He knows what he’s talking about.