Madison Community Center in Arlington - making it a school again?

[Anonymous]

Oh and on Reed, as a taxpayer, I'm anti-redoing that b/c we just redid it! What a waste of money. But agree it makes sense. Or is it too close to Mck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh and on Reed, as a taxpayer, I'm anti-redoing that b/c we just redid it! What a waste of money. But agree it makes sense. Or is it too close to Mck?

It's not too close to McKinley. Reopening Reed will relieve Ashlawn and McKinley which will continue to be overcrowded despite additions. Other nearby schools like Glebe and Tuckahoe will continue to be overcrowded. Reopening Reed makes sense and APS planning staff knows that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reed IS the next most viable option for a new ES in N Arlington and staff has talked about it on a number of occasions. The staff preschool will be moved. Despite any opposition from APS teachers who like the convenience, it will eventually move. Moreover, the surrounding neighborhood wants its neighborhood school back. Reed will reopen as an ES. It's just a matter of when.

Is this just because is common sense...or do you know this for a fact (that it'll reopen). Seems like from the last round of discussions there was zero real interest from the school board, despite community support for reopening it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed IS the next most viable option for a new ES in N Arlington and staff has talked about it on a number of occasions. The staff preschool will be moved. Despite any opposition from APS teachers who like the convenience, it will eventually move. Moreover, the surrounding neighborhood wants its neighborhood school back. Reed will reopen as an ES. It's just a matter of when.

Is this just because is common sense...or do you know this for a fact (that it'll reopen). Seems like from the last round of discussions there was zero real interest from the school board, despite community support for reopening it.

No. The last round, the CIP 5 years ago, the neighborhood resisted reopening the school citing traffic concerns and the proximity of the nearby homes.

That's why we're building additions at Ashlawn and McKinley. And that's why a new ES was planned at the Kenmore site. Things never work out as originally planned so now we have Discovery, and Reed is still a preschool. The neighborhood around Reed woke up last year when they heard plans that H-B might move there. Those plans mobilized the neighborhood behind reopening Reed as an ES.

Because of space constraints and the highly unlikely scenario that ATS will move, Reed is the next logical choice for an ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many admin people are invested in Reed staying a daycare (its a perk as an employee of ACPS if you can get a spot).

That stinks, one of the ES in McLean/Falls Church has a similar problem.

Yeah, that's terrible! We should only care about kids and their families once the kids are 5.

[Anonymous]

I'm the OP. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about repurposing the Madison building, but I do live close by and it seems like a great option if the capacity issue is as dire as it's being painted to be. What I think comes out on a thread like this is that Arlington doesn't lack space or options to provide adequate seats for our kids, it just has difficult choices to make and everyone freaks out when that decision disrupts the status quo. Is it really a capacity crisis, or is it just a collosal failure to reach something resembling a consensus? Why would a community whose property values are tied so directly with the quality of its schools jeopordize that advantage by squabbling over dog parks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about repurposing the Madison building, but I do live close by and it seems like a great option if the capacity issue is as dire as it's being painted to be. What I think comes out on a thread like this is that Arlington doesn't lack space or options to provide adequate seats for our kids, it just has difficult choices to make and everyone freaks out when that decision disrupts the status quo. Is it really a capacity crisis, or is it just a collosal failure to reach something resembling a consensus? Why would a community whose property values are tied so directly with the quality of its schools jeopordize that advantage by squabbling over dog parks?

The people fighting against this stuff bought in the 70's and 80's. They aren't worried about their property values and they hate those who living in 1.1+ McMansions. They also don't have kids I the schools anymore. They are assholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reed IS the next most viable option for a new ES in N Arlington and staff has talked about it on a number of occasions. The staff preschool will be moved. Despite any opposition from APS teachers who like the convenience, it will eventually move. Moreover, the surrounding neighborhood wants its neighborhood school back. Reed will reopen as an ES. It's just a matter of when.

Is this just because is common sense...or do you know this for a fact (that it'll reopen). Seems like from the last round of discussions there was zero real interest from the school board, despite community support for reopening it.

No. The last round, the CIP 5 years ago, the neighborhood resisted reopening the school citing traffic concerns and the proximity of the nearby homes.

That's why we're building additions at Ashlawn and McKinley. And that's why a new ES was planned at the Kenmore site. Things never work out as originally planned so now we have Discovery, and Reed is still a preschool. The neighborhood around Reed woke up last year when they heard plans that H-B might move there. Those plans mobilized the neighborhood behind reopening Reed as an ES.

Because of space constraints and the highly unlikely scenario that ATS will move, Reed is the next logical choice for an ES.

This is not entirely true. A lof of the neighborhood around Reed was in favor of an ES at that site, but APS blew it. Instead of adding on to the additional building, APS proposed placing the building in a separate location on the parcel of land (pure idiocy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about repurposing the Madison building, but I do live close by and it seems like a great option if the capacity issue is as dire as it's being painted to be. What I think comes out on a thread like this is that Arlington doesn't lack space or options to provide adequate seats for our kids, it just has difficult choices to make and everyone freaks out when that decision disrupts the status quo. Is it really a capacity crisis, or is it just a collosal failure to reach something resembling a consensus? Why would a community whose property values are tied so directly with the quality of its schools jeopordize that advantage by squabbling over dog parks?

The people fighting against this stuff bought in the 70's and 80's. They aren't worried about their property values and they hate those who living in 1.1+ McMansions. They also don't have kids I the schools anymore. They are assholes.

Maybe but in the 70s and 80s that area was some of the most expensive real estate in the Metro area. Still is. It's relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about repurposing the Madison building, but I do live close by and it seems like a great option if the capacity issue is as dire as it's being painted to be. What I think comes out on a thread like this is that Arlington doesn't lack space or options to provide adequate seats for our kids, it just has difficult choices to make and everyone freaks out when that decision disrupts the status quo. Is it really a capacity crisis, or is it just a collosal failure to reach something resembling a consensus? Why would a community whose property values are tied so directly with the quality of its schools jeopordize that advantage by squabbling over dog parks?

The people fighting against this stuff bought in the 70's and 80's. They aren't worried about their property values and they hate those who living in 1.1+ McMansions. They also don't have kids I the schools anymore. They are assholes.

Maybe but in the 70s and 80s that area was some of the most expensive real estate in the Metro area. Still is. It's relative.

In the 70's and 80's those areas were filled with mid level feds. Not dual income big law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about repurposing the Madison building, but I do live close by and it seems like a great option if the capacity issue is as dire as it's being painted to be. What I think comes out on a thread like this is that Arlington doesn't lack space or options to provide adequate seats for our kids, it just has difficult choices to make and everyone freaks out when that decision disrupts the status quo. Is it really a capacity crisis, or is it just a collosal failure to reach something resembling a consensus? Why would a community whose property values are tied so directly with the quality of its schools jeopordize that advantage by squabbling over dog parks?

The people fighting against this stuff bought in the 70's and 80's. They aren't worried about their property values and they hate those who living in 1.1+ McMansions. They also don't have kids I the schools anymore. They are assholes.

Maybe but in the 70s and 80s that area was some of the most expensive real estate in the Metro area. Still is. It's relative.

In the 70's and 80's those areas were filled with mid level feds. Not dual income big law.

Nope. Talk to the locals who grew up there in the 60s and 70s. Taylor and Madison (and Stratford Jr. High) had a reputation as schools where the "rich kids" went. All those neighborhoods up and down Military Road and Lorcom Lane were very expensive then. The Broyhill houses were the less expensive ones and the exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about repurposing the Madison building, but I do live close by and it seems like a great option if the capacity issue is as dire as it's being painted to be. What I think comes out on a thread like this is that Arlington doesn't lack space or options to provide adequate seats for our kids, it just has difficult choices to make and everyone freaks out when that decision disrupts the status quo. Is it really a capacity crisis, or is it just a collosal failure to reach something resembling a consensus? Why would a community whose property values are tied so directly with the quality of its schools jeopordize that advantage by squabbling over dog parks?

The people fighting against this stuff bought in the 70's and 80's. They aren't worried about their property values and they hate those who living in 1.1+ McMansions. They also don't have kids I the schools anymore. They are assholes.

Maybe but in the 70s and 80s that area was some of the most expensive real estate in the Metro area. Still is. It's relative.

In the 70's and 80's those areas were filled with mid level feds. Not dual income big law.

Nope. Talk to the locals who grew up there in the 60s and 70s. Taylor and Madison (and Stratford Jr. High) had a reputation as schools where the "rich kids" went. All those neighborhoods up and down Military Road and Lorcom Lane were very expensive then. The Broyhill houses were the less expensive ones and the exception.

Rich then and rich now aren't the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh and on Reed, as a taxpayer, I'm anti-redoing that b/c we just redid it! What a waste of money. But agree it makes sense. Or is it too close to Mck?

But when it was done, it was done in a way that would make it (relatively) easy to convert to an ES if necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh and on Reed, as a taxpayer, I'm anti-redoing that b/c we just redid it! What a waste of money. But agree it makes sense. Or is it too close to Mck?

But when it was done, it was done in a way that would make it (relatively) easy to convert to an ES if necessary.

Right. It can be used for early education or as an ES without undoing much of what was done. It was designed to convert to an ES, not a secondary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh and on Reed, as a taxpayer, I'm anti-redoing that b/c we just redid it! What a waste of money. But agree it makes sense. Or is it too close to Mck?

But when it was done, it was done in a way that would make it (relatively) easy to convert to an ES if necessary.

Right. It can be used for early education or as an ES without undoing much of what was done. It was designed to convert to an ES, not a secondary school.

So what's the hold up for making it an ES?