Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw the first tree a minute after it fell. AMA

How far can you punt a football?

[Anonymous]

For those who have not been to Murch and are not aware of the scale of the project and the compact nature of the site, swinging on site might indeed seem reasonable as many other schools have done this, including Lafayette. However, the Lafayette site and others include a reasonable amount of play space away from the construction area whereas the students at Murch would be confined to a smaller space with no abutting play space for twice the amount of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who have not been to Murch and are not aware of the scale of the project and the compact nature of the site, swinging on site might indeed seem reasonable as many other schools have done this, including Lafayette. However, the Lafayette site and others include a reasonable amount of play space away from the construction area whereas the students at Murch would be confined to a smaller space with no abutting play space for twice the amount of time.

To put this in perspective: Lafayette sits on something like 7 acres abutting another 7 acre public playground and park; Murch is on 3 acres, and they have the same number of students (Murch is 4 classrooms smaller). In fact, the area that Lafayette's trailers are using is just about the same size as Murch's entire lot without construction.

Imagine Patterson cuts all the way through Lafayette, and there is no playground on the other side, and the current Lafayette building site is housing. So your current trailers on the baseball field are now your permanent school and that is all the land you have (this will equal the size of Murch). Move all your roads in to flank the baseball fields -- that is the size of the Murch block (note the difference this makes to parking and drop off zones -- and no parking or stopping allowed on one long side (Reno)).

Now, imagine they are going to build a building for 750 students on that trailer city site (which is great news). The building will take up all the land except for one acre that will be left for playground. But, while they build there, your 600+ children will also still go to school on the same site. Some of the trailers you have now will be replaced by expensive double deckers, and they will put a fence 45-90 feet away to protect your kids from the pit they are digging where one of the the baseball diamonds was and the cranes and equipment that will erect the building. The children will play in the 45-90-foot space between the classrooms and the construction equipment in shifts (DCPS said this is less than their minimum standard, but the best they can do). Also, no cafeteria (nothing new for Murch), so the children will have very minimal time outside the trailer classrooms. For two years, your 4-11 year old children will be sharing that flat, 3-acre space with excavation and construction.

That is what Murch is facing with the on site option. And we understand if you now say, gosh, I had no idea the Murch site was so small.

We don't like the Lafayette option and it has a host of issues, so put those arguments forward. But do not argue that the Murch on site option is the same as what Lafayette has had this year. It is not even close to comparable to what Lafayette has had swinging on its 7 acre site (though I'm sure it hasn't been pleasant) with a lovely public playground at its disposal. Lafayette's swing site is a luxury by comparison (actually, it is a luxury compared to what Murch kids have now, but that's beside the point). In fact, even with both schools on site, there would be as much space per child as Murch has now (before construction). Lafayette is just used to having more.

Hoping for UDC to come through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have not been to Murch and are not aware of the scale of the project and the compact nature of the site, swinging on site might indeed seem reasonable as many other schools have done this, including Lafayette. However, the Lafayette site and others include a reasonable amount of play space away from the construction area whereas the students at Murch would be confined to a smaller space with no abutting play space for twice the amount of time.

To put this in perspective: Lafayette sits on something like 7 acres abutting another 7 acre public playground and park; Murch is on 3 acres, and they have the same number of students (Murch is 4 classrooms smaller). In fact, the area that Lafayette's trailers are using is just about the same size as Murch's entire lot without construction.

Imagine Patterson cuts all the way through Lafayette, and there is no playground on the other side, and the current Lafayette building site is housing. So your current trailers on the baseball field are now your permanent school and that is all the land you have (this will equal the size of Murch). Move all your roads in to flank the baseball fields -- that is the size of the Murch block (note the difference this makes to parking and drop off zones -- and no parking or stopping allowed on one long side (Reno)).

Now, imagine they are going to build a building for 750 students on that trailer city site (which is great news). The building will take up all the land except for one acre that will be left for playground. But, while they build there, your 600+ children will also still go to school on the same site. Some of the trailers you have now will be replaced by expensive double deckers, and they will put a fence 45-90 feet away to protect your kids from the pit they are digging where one of the the baseball diamonds was and the cranes and equipment that will erect the building. The children will play in the 45-90-foot space between the classrooms and the construction equipment in shifts (DCPS said this is less than their minimum standard, but the best they can do). Also, no cafeteria (nothing new for Murch), so the children will have very minimal time outside the trailer classrooms. For two years, your 4-11 year old children will be sharing that flat, 3-acre space with excavation and construction.

That is what Murch is facing with the on site option. And we understand if you now say, gosh, I had no idea the Murch site was so small.


We don't like the Lafayette option and it has a host of issues, so put those arguments forward. But do not argue that the Murch on site option is the same as what Lafayette has had this year. It is not even close to comparable to what Lafayette has had swinging on its 7 acre site (though I'm sure it hasn't been pleasant) with a lovely public playground at its disposal. Lafayette's swing site is a luxury by comparison (actually, it is a luxury compared to what Murch kids have now, but that's beside the point). In fact, even with both schools on site, there would be as much space per child as Murch has now (before construction). Lafayette is just used to having more.

Hoping for UDC to come through.

While I completely agree it looks good on papern, a very small portion of the 7 acres belongs to the school. The rest is city property, with a playground that very clearly cannot withstand the heavy use it is getting with just one school, part of which is used to walk dogs, and not suitable for play, and much of which will be taken up by the school itself, which was expanded in size and scope in order to be able to take 150 students from Murch. The very narrow streets which are heavily used to commute are also not suitable for 1400 kids plus teachers, etc. There is no way both schools can use the play area - recess will have to be staggered one week for one school, one week for the other or something similar. Anyone who has actually seen the site understands the problems immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have not been to Murch and are not aware of the scale of the project and the compact nature of the site, swinging on site might indeed seem reasonable as many other schools have done this, including Lafayette. However, the Lafayette site and others include a reasonable amount of play space away from the construction area whereas the students at Murch would be confined to a smaller space with no abutting play space for twice the amount of time.

To put this in perspective: Lafayette sits on something like 7 acres abutting another 7 acre public playground and park; Murch is on 3 acres, and they have the same number of students (Murch is 4 classrooms smaller). In fact, the area that Lafayette's trailers are using is just about the same size as Murch's entire lot without construction.

Imagine Patterson cuts all the way through Lafayette, and there is no playground on the other side, and the current Lafayette building site is housing. So your current trailers on the baseball field are now your permanent school and that is all the land you have (this will equal the size of Murch). Move all your roads in to flank the baseball fields -- that is the size of the Murch block (note the difference this makes to parking and drop off zones -- and no parking or stopping allowed on one long side (Reno)).

Now, imagine they are going to build a building for 750 students on that trailer city site (which is great news). The building will take up all the land except for one acre that will be left for playground. But, while they build there, your 600+ children will also still go to school on the same site. Some of the trailers you have now will be replaced by expensive double deckers, and they will put a fence 45-90 feet away to protect your kids from the pit they are digging where one of the the baseball diamonds was and the cranes and equipment that will erect the building. The children will play in the 45-90-foot space between the classrooms and the construction equipment in shifts (DCPS said this is less than their minimum standard, but the best they can do). Also, no cafeteria (nothing new for Murch), so the children will have very minimal time outside the trailer classrooms. For two years, your 4-11 year old children will be sharing that flat, 3-acre space with excavation and construction.

That is what Murch is facing with the on site option. And we understand if you now say, gosh, I had no idea the Murch site was so small.


We don't like the Lafayette option and it has a host of issues, so put those arguments forward. But do not argue that the Murch on site option is the same as what Lafayette has had this year. It is not even close to comparable to what Lafayette has had swinging on its 7 acre site (though I'm sure it hasn't been pleasant) with a lovely public playground at its disposal. Lafayette's swing site is a luxury by comparison (actually, it is a luxury compared to what Murch kids have now, but that's beside the point). In fact, even with both schools on site, there would be as much space per child as Murch has now (before construction). Lafayette is just used to having more.

Hoping for UDC to come through.

While I completely agree it looks good on papern, a very small portion of the 7 acres belongs to the school. The rest is city property, with a playground that very clearly cannot withstand the heavy use it is getting with just one school, part of which is used to walk dogs, and not suitable for play, and much of which will be taken up by the school itself, which was expanded in size and scope in order to be able to take 150 students from Murch. The very narrow streets which are heavily used to commute are also not suitable for 1400 kids plus teachers, etc. There is no way both schools can use the play area - recess will have to be staggered one week for one school, one week for the other or something similar. Anyone who has actually seen the site understands the problems immediately.

That wasn't the point of PP (PP was not arguing for use of Lafayette). The point was in response to those who suggested that swinging on site at Murch was just the same as Lafayette swinging on site at Lafayette. Not the same at all.

[Anonymous]

Tomorrow, Tomorrow, we'll find out tomorrow...it's only a daaaaaaay aaaaa waaaaay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tomorrow, Tomorrow, we'll find out tomorrow...it's only a daaaaaaay aaaaa waaaaay!

You mean tomorrow we are going to find out when the next deadline for finding out is going to be, based on DCPS past behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tomorrow, Tomorrow, we'll find out tomorrow...it's only a daaaaaaay aaaaa waaaaay!

You mean tomorrow we are going to find out when the next deadline for finding out is going to be, based on DCPS past behavior.

My thoughts exactly. Suspect they'll blame the snow. That hasn't fallen yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tomorrow, Tomorrow, we'll find out tomorrow...it's only a daaaaaaay aaaaa waaaaay!

You mean tomorrow we are going to find out when the next deadline for finding out is going to be, based on DCPS past behavior.

My thoughts exactly. Suspect they'll blame the snow. That hasn't fallen yet.

Flurries are in the forecast tonight. That should be good for a two week delay.