Murch meeting tonight on swing space

[Anonymous]

That's why swinging all the students to the park on Chesapeake St. and using two-story trailers makes more sense. Eaton is a school on a small lot just like Murch. During renovation, however, the Murch lot will be even smaller and will be filled with trucks, cranes, heavy digging equipment and all the noise, vibrations, dust etc. of an active construction site. Not safe. Not healthy.

I am hoping the folks at Eaton are keeping an eye on how the question of the Murch swing space is resolved so they can find better options during renovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's why swinging all the students to the park on Chesapeake St. and using two-story trailers makes more sense. Eaton is a school on a small lot just like Murch. During renovation, however, the Murch lot will be even smaller and will be filled with trucks, cranes, heavy digging equipment and all the noise, vibrations, dust etc. of an active construction site. Not safe. Not healthy.

I am hoping the folks at Eaton are keeping an eye on how the question of the Murch swing space is resolved so they can find better options during renovation.

Eaton is not likely to renovated during this decade.

[Anonymous]

Why not use DCPS space east of the Deal field, north of Deal's new wing and south of Fessenden? It's been used over the years as an unimproved field and as a construction staging area. There's access from both Deal and Fessenden (and possibly Reno). And utility hookups are close by. Best of all, it's very close to Murch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not use DCPS space east of the Deal field, north of Deal's new wing and south of Fessenden? It's been used over the years as an unimproved field and as a construction staging area. There's access from both Deal and Fessenden (and possibly Reno). And utility hookups are close by. Best of all, it's very close to Murch.

Who owns it? It is smaller than the site at Chesapeake (about 1.3 acres.) But I wonder why DGS never thought of it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not use DCPS space east of the Deal field, north of Deal's new wing and south of Fessenden? It's been used over the years as an unimproved field and as a construction staging area. There's access from both Deal and Fessenden (and possibly Reno). And utility hookups are close by. Best of all, it's very close to Murch.

That's owned by NPS.

[Anonymous]

Here's an out-of-the-box idea: close Ellicott Street and use it for swing space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an out-of-the-box idea: close Ellicott Street and use it for swing space.

I'm sure the people who live on the block and St. Paul's Church would be 100% behind that idea. I know I would be if someone proposed closing off the street in front of my house for 2 years and installed two story trailers, plumbing, electrical and sewer lines for 600+ kids right outside my front door. As long as DCPS repaired my lawn at the end of it no problem. Let's get right on it. You first.

[Anonymous]

There was a VERY helpful and enlightening post on the CCDC listserv today that explained a lot of the NPS issues:

What many people may not realize is that one-third of the Murch campus is not just any old slice of National Park Service land but in fact part of Fort Reno and thus an NPS Civil War Defenses of Washington site. Since 1902 the federal government has had big, big plans to connect these hilly open spaces known as the Circle Forts into one big national recreation trail greenway. Consequently, in 1985 NPS had a conniption when the city erected a double-wide trailer known as the "Kaufman Wing" to alleviate chronic overcrowding. The city assured the feds that the trailer was temporary and agreed that nothing would be built there when it was taken out of commission. Straining any reasonable definition of "temporary," that trailer is still in heavy use. But when the city finally tears it down during Murch's long-overdue modernization, that space must by covenant revert to open play space. This is one of several restrictions on the Murch property that has created all kinds of design and logistical challenges over the years and in planning for impending construction.


To say that the best option for Murch students is to swing on-site reveals a lack of understanding about the limitations on the property and the scale of the project. The school's physical structure is doubling in size, necessitating that every square inch of open space, NPS or not, be dug up at some point over the next two years. Housing ~700 people on site in close proximity (about 10 feet in some cases) from construction poses significant challenges in terms of physical and environmental safety, traffic congestion (already a daily fiasco), instruction, school events, utilities, and recess. Believe me, the Murch SIT has badgered DGS about swing space and how to get NPS to the table since our very first meeting four years ago. Although NPS has held firm to its policy of no permanent buildings on their side of the campus, DGS considered it a major victory that they got the OK for a basketball hoop and soccer field. Despite magical thinking by DGS that NPS will also deign to allow the city to make improvements to the greenspace on the 3700 block of Davenport -- also part of Fort Reno -- suitable for temporary play or trailers, our community is highly skeptical. That field would require significant improvements to make it safe and useable for more than dog walking. Getting large groups of students across Reno Road several times a day just for recess would be a hassle and likely eat into instructional time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a VERY helpful and enlightening post on the CCDC listserv today that explained a lot of the NPS issues:

What many people may not realize is that one-third of the Murch campus is not just any old slice of National Park Service land but in fact part of Fort Reno and thus an NPS Civil War Defenses of Washington site. Since 1902 the federal government has had big, big plans to connect these hilly open spaces known as the Circle Forts into one big national recreation trail greenway. Consequently, in 1985 NPS had a conniption when the city erected a double-wide trailer known as the "Kaufman Wing" to alleviate chronic overcrowding. The city assured the feds that the trailer was temporary and agreed that nothing would be built there when it was taken out of commission. Straining any reasonable definition of "temporary," that trailer is still in heavy use. But when the city finally tears it down during Murch's long-overdue modernization, that space must by covenant revert to open play space. This is one of several restrictions on the Murch property that has created all kinds of design and logistical challenges over the years and in planning for impending construction.


To say that the best option for Murch students is to swing on-site reveals a lack of understanding about the limitations on the property and the scale of the project. The school's physical structure is doubling in size, necessitating that every square inch of open space, NPS or not, be dug up at some point over the next two years. Housing ~700 people on site in close proximity (about 10 feet in some cases) from construction poses significant challenges in terms of physical and environmental safety, traffic congestion (already a daily fiasco), instruction, school events, utilities, and recess. Believe me, the Murch SIT has badgered DGS about swing space and how to get NPS to the table since our very first meeting four years ago. Although NPS has held firm to its policy of no permanent buildings on their side of the campus, DGS considered it a major victory that they got the OK for a basketball hoop and soccer field. Despite magical thinking by DGS that NPS will also deign to allow the city to make improvements to the greenspace on the 3700 block of Davenport -- also part of Fort Reno -- suitable for temporary play or trailers, our community is highly skeptical. That field would require significant improvements to make it safe and useable for more than dog walking. Getting large groups of students across Reno Road several times a day just for recess would be a hassle and likely eat into instructional time.

Very helpful.

It does point out the question of whether Murch is too big (and will be permanently built too big) for its space. And it's nutty to have at least 10% of the school be OOB when it's (a) so overcrowded and (b) even when rebuilt, will be very constrained on the site.

OOB aside, the reality is that DC owns little land WOTP for school expansion and swing space. An exception is the building and land around the Second District police station on Idaho Ave. near McLean Gardens. The station is outmoded. Large, fortress-like police stations are so "Hill St. Blues" - 1970s era, and in modern policing have been replaced by small, community-oriented substations. It would make a great school site, close to Wisconsin & Mass. Avenues, with lots of potential open space around it. The only problem is that it's kind of in the wrong spot today -- in a part of Ward 3 where the local population doesn't even fill the neighborhood schools. Eaton is about 60% OOB and Hearst is 75%+ OOB. Too bad that there isn't similar space closer to Murch, Janney and Lafayette.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Very helpful.

It does point out the question of whether Murch is too big (and will be permanently built too big) for its space. And it's nutty to have at least 10% of the school be OOB when it's (a) so overcrowded and (b) even when rebuilt, will be very constrained on the site.

OOB aside, the reality is that DC owns little land WOTP for school expansion and swing space. An exception is the building and land around the Second District police station on Idaho Ave. near McLean Gardens. The station is outmoded. Large, fortress-like police stations are so "Hill St. Blues" - 1970s era, and in modern policing have been replaced by small, community-oriented substations. It would make a great school site, close to Wisconsin & Mass. Avenues, with lots of potential open space around it. The only problem is that it's kind of in the wrong spot today -- in a part of Ward 3 where the local population doesn't even fill the neighborhood schools. Eaton is about 60% OOB and Hearst is 75%+ OOB. Too bad that there isn't similar space closer to Murch, Janney and Lafayette.

There is also the former Hardy Elementary School on Foxhall Road. While not particularly close to Murch, it is the only DCPS-owned parcel WOTP that is not currently a public school. It's on a five-plus acre site, bigger than some high schools.

[Anonymous]

I personally think they will end up swinging to Lafayette for one year then swing back on site when there is more of a buffer between construction and kids plus the old building will be renovated allowing for kids IN the building meaning less trailers and more play area. Seems cheapest and easiest option.

Now the whole more schools WOTP will have to be a discussion for later time after the boundary review changes have been implemented fully.

[Anonymous]

Two resources that I find very helpful for these kinds of discussions:

The DC Atlas -- http://atlasplus.dcgis.dc.gov/ . Shows every plot of land in DC and lot and square number.

The Real Property Assessment database: https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com/RP_Search.jsp?search_type=Assessment . Once you know the square and lot you can look and see who the registered owner is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Very helpful.

It does point out the question of whether Murch is too big (and will be permanently built too big) for its space. And it's nutty to have at least 10% of the school be OOB when it's (a) so overcrowded and (b) even when rebuilt, will be very constrained on the site.

OOB aside, the reality is that DC owns little land WOTP for school expansion and swing space. An exception is the building and land around the Second District police station on Idaho Ave. near McLean Gardens. The station is outmoded. Large, fortress-like police stations are so "Hill St. Blues" - 1970s era, and in modern policing have been replaced by small, community-oriented substations. It would make a great school site, close to Wisconsin & Mass. Avenues, with lots of potential open space around it. The only problem is that it's kind of in the wrong spot today -- in a part of Ward 3 where the local population doesn't even fill the neighborhood schools. Eaton is about 60% OOB and Hearst is 75%+ OOB. Too bad that there isn't similar space closer to Murch, Janney and Lafayette.

There is also the former Hardy Elementary School on Foxhall Road. While not particularly close to Murch, it is the only DCPS-owned parcel WOTP that is not currently a public school. It's on a five-plus acre site, bigger than some high schools.

Are you suggesting this for Murch swing space?

[Anonymous]

Isn't the former Hardy school leased to WIS?

[Anonymous]

How about bussing Murch kids to one of the empty or under utilized schools East of Park?