posted by Mike Madison at 8:03 AM /
Mt. Lebanon architect Dan Rothschild, whose thoughtful recent analysis of the Mt. Lebanon High School renovation was featured here the other day, has sent another insightful letter to Superintendent Tim Steinhauer and the School Board. Dan authorized me to post the text here:
Daniel Rothschild 25 Sunnyhill Drive, Mt. Lebanon, PA 412.561.2324 redshield.six@verizon.net
September 16, 2009
Dr. Timothy J. Steinhauer
Superintendent
Mt. Lebanon School District
7 Horsman Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Subject: The Process, Mt. Lebanon High School Additions and Renovations
Dear Dr. Steinhauer:
One of the highlights of the High School renovation process is the incredible detail on the High School website. Although certainly not a replacement for face-to-face communication, it offers a wealth of information. One of the most helpful assets is the recording of time during this process. Looking back at this chronology offers a striking contrast between the time period to decide which option to select and the time period for the schematic design.
The earliest entry for the current design team is July 2008. From that point forward, there was a deliberate seven month process to determine whether the high school project should proceed with Options 1, 2, or 3, a range that included renovation to totally new construction. I, for one, thought the School Board did an exemplary job of thoroughly vetting this information with the community. From community open houses at various schools, to public meetings, and continuous website updates, residents were given the opportunity to voice their concerns and add valuable insight.
At the February Board meeting, I was proud of this process as I heard the thoughtful final speeches from each of the Board members. At that vote, it was decided that a “version” of Option 2 would be selected. This is an important point, because the “version” status clearly showed that Options 1, 2, and 3 were not to be considered final designs but merely directions for the design.
At that point the process took a turn for the worse in relation to time.
The March Board meeting was cancelled, and the April Board meeting did not occur. On May 11th, the architects presented the first schematic design. Less than one month later, on June 8th, the Board approved the schematic design. What happened to the thoughtful and deliberate process to include community input that was so present during the previous seven months?
I could only conjecture why this happened. Could it be that the Board felt that their primary work was complete now that they selected a “version” of Option 2? Years of experience in the design field told me otherwise. Their heavy lifting was about to start. A “version” of Option 2 could run the gamut from doing just a little more than Option 1 to slightly less than Option 3. Working out the details of a “version” of Option 2 would be considerably more difficult than selecting options because of the wide range of choices and their effect on design, function, and cost.
The 28 days between March 11th and June 8th raise many questions in regard to process. Where were the community forums? I have heard mention of a “Community Advisory Panel”, did they meet? Was there teacher feedback? Or was the Board considering that the public process ended with the selection of a “version” of Option 2 and that residents should be able to sit in an audience on May 11th and offer comment on the spot after seeing the design for the first time? It appears the Board was content to let the architects make the critical decisions without public input.
The process during those 28 days has set a problematic trajectory in regard to the direction for the project, and could erode the trust between the community and the Board that was present at the February Board meeting. It is not too late for each Board member to ask themselves: is the current process the proper process for our community?
I would request that the Board reconsider continuing with the current design and choose a more thoughtful and collaborative approach rather than settle for expediency. There are many proven community consensus models to choose from, and I would be happy to share them with you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Rothschild, AIA LEED Accredited Professional
Cc: Mt. Lebanon School Board members
Daniel Rothschild 25 Sunnyhill Drive, Mt. Lebanon, PA 412.561.2324 redshield.six@verizon.net
September 16, 2009
Dr. Timothy J. Steinhauer
Superintendent
Mt. Lebanon School District
7 Horsman Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Subject: The Process, Mt. Lebanon High School Additions and Renovations
Dear Dr. Steinhauer:
One of the highlights of the High School renovation process is the incredible detail on the High School website. Although certainly not a replacement for face-to-face communication, it offers a wealth of information. One of the most helpful assets is the recording of time during this process. Looking back at this chronology offers a striking contrast between the time period to decide which option to select and the time period for the schematic design.
The earliest entry for the current design team is July 2008. From that point forward, there was a deliberate seven month process to determine whether the high school project should proceed with Options 1, 2, or 3, a range that included renovation to totally new construction. I, for one, thought the School Board did an exemplary job of thoroughly vetting this information with the community. From community open houses at various schools, to public meetings, and continuous website updates, residents were given the opportunity to voice their concerns and add valuable insight.
At the February Board meeting, I was proud of this process as I heard the thoughtful final speeches from each of the Board members. At that vote, it was decided that a “version” of Option 2 would be selected. This is an important point, because the “version” status clearly showed that Options 1, 2, and 3 were not to be considered final designs but merely directions for the design.
At that point the process took a turn for the worse in relation to time.
The March Board meeting was cancelled, and the April Board meeting did not occur. On May 11th, the architects presented the first schematic design. Less than one month later, on June 8th, the Board approved the schematic design. What happened to the thoughtful and deliberate process to include community input that was so present during the previous seven months?
I could only conjecture why this happened. Could it be that the Board felt that their primary work was complete now that they selected a “version” of Option 2? Years of experience in the design field told me otherwise. Their heavy lifting was about to start. A “version” of Option 2 could run the gamut from doing just a little more than Option 1 to slightly less than Option 3. Working out the details of a “version” of Option 2 would be considerably more difficult than selecting options because of the wide range of choices and their effect on design, function, and cost.
The 28 days between March 11th and June 8th raise many questions in regard to process. Where were the community forums? I have heard mention of a “Community Advisory Panel”, did they meet? Was there teacher feedback? Or was the Board considering that the public process ended with the selection of a “version” of Option 2 and that residents should be able to sit in an audience on May 11th and offer comment on the spot after seeing the design for the first time? It appears the Board was content to let the architects make the critical decisions without public input.
The process during those 28 days has set a problematic trajectory in regard to the direction for the project, and could erode the trust between the community and the Board that was present at the February Board meeting. It is not too late for each Board member to ask themselves: is the current process the proper process for our community?
I would request that the Board reconsider continuing with the current design and choose a more thoughtful and collaborative approach rather than settle for expediency. There are many proven community consensus models to choose from, and I would be happy to share them with you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Rothschild, AIA LEED Accredited Professional
Cc: Mt. Lebanon School Board members
Labels: high school renovation
1 Comments:
"The rush", I believe, is due to three factors working in consort. Here is my read, or how things appear to me, and I'm no expert :
1)Under Act 1, the school board sought and has PDE preapproval to issue $69 million in initial bonds....with a condition that the 1st. debt service payment on such an issue occur before a date certain, possibly by/during the 3rd. quarter of 2010. I'm not absolutely sure of the precise date. Coupled with this are extremely low bond rates, which may not remain low indefinitely, be they for non-taxable or taxable Build America Bonds. Look for bond issuance by yearend. Proceeds will begin to be used to pay "soft costs" of the project as well as some building B items perhaps.
2) the architects are about 9 weeks *tardy* along a project schedule timeline they have convinced the board majority is absolutely necessary (but have not fully revealed details to the public) in order to get the whole ball rolling, *shovel ready* or whatever, by fall 2010. As such, the board is being pressed to make decisions without adequate detail, thought , comprehension and open discussion (including public forums, etc.). I have no idea why this start date is so fixed and unalterable.
3)these factors have caused the board majority and administration to "circle the wagons", develop a "fortress mentality" and a severe case of *closed minds*. In order to achieve the ends described in the above points, the board cannot really pause to openly and thoroughly address seriously and honestly professional critiques by the likes of Dirk Taylor and Dan Rothschild. Sounds like the board saying "don't confuse us with the facts, our minds are made up"...they have a schedule to maintain for Pete's sake. In order to do that, they have to have the design development phase uninterrupted and completed to the point that they can obtain updated project costing in order to proceed with the initial PDE preapproved bond issue. That information will not be shared with the public until mid or late November...after the general election.
If others have a better or more factual read on this, please chime in. We need lots of *sunshine* on this aspect.
Post a Comment
<< Home