Murch renovation

[Anonymous]

They added 60 kids this year, plus another 70? That is a lot more kids. This all seems pretty absent-minded.

[Anonymous]

That plot of land is not enough to house 700 kids! why is the Murch community so blasé about increasing the enrollmrnt? That seems very shortsighted.

[Anonymous]

Agree, it is really bad city planning.

[Anonymous]

Boundary process tried to shrink Murch's boundary but the folks who would switch fought it tooth and nail. Huge opportunity missed. Sadly, now the Murch community has to live with the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Murch boundaries did shrink. The largest change was made by lopping off the weird dog leg that went all the way to Western Ave. The southern boundary also changed by moving north. It had the largest boundary change of the NW schools. it is a great school and community which lots of people are happy sending their kids to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boundary process tried to shrink Murch's boundary but the folks who would switch fought it tooth and nail. Huge opportunity missed. Sadly, now the Murch community has to live with the consequences.

This is BS. The new boundary moves a big swath from Murch to Lafayette (instead of to Hearst, as originally proposed). There was never a proposal that would have reduced Murch's population meaningfully. The city has no plan for dealing with massive overcrowding in ward 3 ESs.

[Anonymous]

Well, the Murch families have to deal with long-term overcrowding now. Overcrowding in the swing space, then returning to a school without enough common areas or playspace that will still be overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The part that amazed me were the people from the neighborhood who want to delay the remodel for years because they don't feel that the neighbors have been informed or made aware of the renovations. They were SHOCKED to find out that a renovation was being planned.

I am a neighbor who lives directly across from Murch and we are a long time Murch family. There are a few misconceptions/issues here:
1. Neighbors were not notified of the meeting, the current plan or anything, unless they found out about it as current families. But DC (ngs?) are supposed to specifically notify and have a meeting with the homes directly affected (aka in the envelope) and they did not. No one wAs shocked sbout a renovation but it's been a topic for at least 5 years .

2. Murch has needed renovation and space for many many years. There was definitely a group of current families who seem to be ready to give up many things in order to have the Renovation done while their kids can benefit from it. The main complaint/concern with the renovation is related to the lack of playground/green space/courts/field. This will affect the neighbors and neighborhood FOREVER and we should not settle for a terrible design which ruins the neighborhood communal/community center. It is very shortsighted to give it up.

3. The man who spoke and who was going on about his experience as a Murch family years ago and who went on About a new elementary school definitely does NOT represent the majority neighborhood, but his point of lack of notification from DGS was right.

4. The current design is awful and ruins a core for the neighborhood (which many people from outside the neighborhood use on off hours as well). I bet st least 75% of kids using the playground learned to bike or scooter on the bluetop. I bet many Murch grade come back and use the basketball court and soccer field. The plans now don't even have a playground.
This is also an enormous issue for the running of the school-700 kids will not be able to play, run, and get out and move during recess, even if they go out in groups of 200 at a time there won't be enough space.

5. There are huge problems and limits with the space but no representation of any creative solutions were presented in the plan.

To be clear-the neighborhood and neighbors are part of the Murch community. No one wants to stop or stall but we want it done with thought and consideration for the role that Murch plays in an ongoing way for Murch families, past, present, and future. That means in large part not destroying and doing away with play space for all. We need to all work together to demand DGS and the architects present us with plans that work for all kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary process tried to shrink Murch's boundary but the folks who would switch fought it tooth and nail. Huge opportunity missed. Sadly, now the Murch community has to live with the consequences.

This is BS. The new boundary moves a big swath from Murch to Lafayette (instead of to Hearst, as originally proposed). There was never a proposal that would have reduced Murch's population meaningfully. The city has no plan for dealing with massive overcrowding in ward 3 ESs.

THIS is BS. Clearly you didn't go to any community meetings or even read the countless threads on DCUM with Murch parents complaining endlessly about how they could not be moved. I agree that the original proposal didn't do as much as was needed, and even that was scaled back, but the boundary process was a missed opportunity for the Murch community to have a conversation about how overcrowded they were and what they needed to do about it. Now their options are limited. I honestly wish them the best, and hope that the project will move forward perhaps in an altered form that can make a little more creative use of space. But with city funds limited, one cannot be too hopeful. What I really worry about is a protracted battle that stalls the whole thing and the city just moves on to the many other schools that need renovations. That would be the worst outcome for Murch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boundary process tried to shrink Murch's boundary but the folks who would switch fought it tooth and nail. Huge opportunity missed. Sadly, now the Murch community has to live with the consequences.

What - the consequences of DCPS adding 70 more kids? Those are the consequences???

[Anonymous]

Former Murch parent here: I always thought any new plan would need to go up or go down. Parking can be underground and an addition can be four floors to the side without losing the bluetop - 3 up and one below the ground. This is really a lousy design and just plops a school on the open space.

I was involved in the last iteration of the playground. $1M of taxpayers money. What a waste not to think that space through in a more sensitive way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary process tried to shrink Murch's boundary but the folks who would switch fought it tooth and nail. Huge opportunity missed. Sadly, now the Murch community has to live with the consequences.

What - the consequences of DCPS adding 70 more kids? Those are the consequences???

I bet one year after renovation they will have a trailer on whatever open space there was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former Murch parent here: I always thought any new plan would need to go up or go down. Parking can be underground and an addition can be four floors to the side without losing the bluetop - 3 up and one below the ground. This is really a lousy design and just plops a school on the open space.

I was involved in the last iteration of the playground. $1M of taxpayers money. What a waste not to think that space through in a more sensitive way.

I agree, it was amazing to me, as a close neighbor, how fast that playground space got erased with trailers and teacher parking. I may be off a tad, but I'm almost sure there was one new trailer the very next school year following completion and a 2nd trailer the next year. Now there's, what? 5 trailers? on the new "play space."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary process tried to shrink Murch's boundary but the folks who would switch fought it tooth and nail. Huge opportunity missed. Sadly, now the Murch community has to live with the consequences.

This is BS. The new boundary moves a big swath from Murch to Lafayette (instead of to Hearst, as originally proposed). There was never a proposal that would have reduced Murch's population meaningfully. The city has no plan for dealing with massive overcrowding in ward 3 ESs.

THIS is BS. Clearly you didn't go to any community meetings or even read the countless threads on DCUM with Murch parents complaining endlessly about how they could not be moved. I agree that the original proposal didn't do as much as was needed, and even that was scaled back, but the boundary process was a missed opportunity for the Murch community to have a conversation about how overcrowded they were and what they needed to do about it. Now their options are limited. I honestly wish them the best, and hope that the project will move forward perhaps in an altered form that can make a little more creative use of space. But with city funds limited, one cannot be too hopeful. What I really worry about is a protracted battle that stalls the whole thing and the city just moves on to the many other schools that need renovations. That would be the worst outcome for Murch.

The Murch boundaries were moved. There was never a discussion specifically with Murch families, so this isn't a Murch issue it is a Ward 3 issue. This is precisely why the process needs to be revisited with real discussions around planning. DCPS continues to demonstrate a complete inability to plan.

[Anonymous]

this is every taxpayers business because DCPS doesn't seem to have any plan, whatsoever.