LeboDesign.net: Is this the high school you want?
Over on lebodesign.net, Dan Rothschild has written a great article about the recently released cost-cutting changes to the high-school plans. If you’re wondering what’s been changed or what those changes mean – and you should – read his article.
Mr. Rothschild argues that, when bids for the school board’s preferred design came in almost 20% over budget, the school board was forced to drastically reduce the cost of the project. But how?
Examining the list of proposed cost reductions, Mr. Rothschild concludes that the school board is attempting to cling to its original design and extract savings by “diminishing” that design, cutting away or downgrading pieces of it.
But drastic cost reductions, he continues, usually require a different design or substantial design modifications – if you want to preserve your original design intent. That’s because everything that was part of the original design was there for a reason. If you cut that design back by a fifth, you’re likely to sacrifice things that were essential to it. (Think about it: if a four-fifths version of the original high-school design would have met our original design goals, wouldn’t we have gotten that design in the first place?)
So Mr. Rothschild asks, highlighting some of the things our community is likely to give up with the diminished design, “Is this the high school you want?”
Is it?
Read his article, consider what we’re giving up, and think about that question.
Also consider the alternative that Mr. Rothschild offers: Reusing Building C. If you would like this alternative to get the consideration it is due, ask the school board to study it and estimate not only its potential cost savings but also its potential educational benefits.
Mt. Lebanon does have more than one option. It’s time for the school board to stop acting like it doesn’t.
Mr. Rothschild argues that, when bids for the school board’s preferred design came in almost 20% over budget, the school board was forced to drastically reduce the cost of the project. But how?
Examining the list of proposed cost reductions, Mr. Rothschild concludes that the school board is attempting to cling to its original design and extract savings by “diminishing” that design, cutting away or downgrading pieces of it.
But drastic cost reductions, he continues, usually require a different design or substantial design modifications – if you want to preserve your original design intent. That’s because everything that was part of the original design was there for a reason. If you cut that design back by a fifth, you’re likely to sacrifice things that were essential to it. (Think about it: if a four-fifths version of the original high-school design would have met our original design goals, wouldn’t we have gotten that design in the first place?)
So Mr. Rothschild asks, highlighting some of the things our community is likely to give up with the diminished design, “Is this the high school you want?”
Is it?
Read his article, consider what we’re giving up, and think about that question.
Also consider the alternative that Mr. Rothschild offers: Reusing Building C. If you would like this alternative to get the consideration it is due, ask the school board to study it and estimate not only its potential cost savings but also its potential educational benefits.
Mt. Lebanon does have more than one option. It’s time for the school board to stop acting like it doesn’t.
Labels: dan rothschild, high school renovation, mt. lebanon school board