Murch moving to lafayette

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only because this is upper NW does a $7 million savings idea get put up for debate. If these were two Ward 7 or 8 schools getting millions of tax money, people would tell anyone complaining about accommodating trailers for an extra year to put up with it and shut up. Such entitlement and privilege.

+1.

Only on DCUM would people take anonymous reactions to an unverified rumor and turn them into a slam on a whole section of the city.

If these were two schools in Ward 7 or Ward 8 that were overcrowded, bursting at the seams and totally neglected for 50+ years - they might. It is insane that either school had to fight as hard as they did to get renovated.

[Anonymous]

Or at the Howard law school campus?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is kind of everyone to put ideas forward. So far no one on here has suggested anything that has not already been proposed and discussed over the past several years (plus a whole lot of other ideas). Keep in mind that swing space has been under debate for almost 3 years now -- believe me, everything under the sun has been proposed, debated, and (hopefully) explored seriously by DGS.

The bottom line is simply that it is going to be expensive to safely accommodate 700 little kids for two years given the scope of the construction project needed to transform an 85 year old building on one small, restricted block, built for 388 students into a modern facility for 730 students. Nothing about this project is easy.

Honestly, it would have been easier for DCPS to find another location to build a totally new, smaller elementary school because basically that is what they are doing. They are just cramming it in next to and on the same small lot as an existing school.

Good to hear that everything has been explored but frankly I would like to hear from DGS what they looked at and why certain sites have been rejected/not looked at further (like lafayette, udc, etc). They haven't done that yet. And then propose a real solution. Hopefully at tonight's meeting there will be more clarity and a thought out proposal given the years everyone has spent discussing this...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I attended my local ANC meeting last week on another matter. I was surprised to hear this discussion. They are currently setting up a trailer city outside lafayette to use while it is being remodeled. Apparently once that renovation in complete there is talk of leaving the trailers and having Murch move into them while it is renovated. Apparently this would save the city something like 7 million dollars instead of recreating the trailer set up again over near murch.

See the article in City Paper on how the mayor is diverting school modernization funds to help pay for a new stadium for DC United. Maybe Murch can use the new stadium!

DC, you be Bowsered again!

[Anonymous]

Bowser....

[Anonymous]

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a UDC building? Unless parents are skeptical of their kids being surround by adults?

PP her, sorry didn't read the entire thread and this question has already come up. To a pp, it will be a building that would only house Murch Students. They will not share a building with college kids. It could be a building that is isolated from the rest of the campus. A couple of security guards and you have your swing space.

Why is this so difficult.

Because UDC has a massive student union construction project underway whic means that their space is limited by: 1. Construction and 2. Shifting their own space to make room for their own construction.

Howard Law school keeps coming up but they too are using their campus.

I asked DGS about the old IntelSat building and they never responded to me. That has a lot of room for lease and open space out front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is kind of everyone to put ideas forward. So far no one on here has suggested anything that has not already been proposed and discussed over the past several years (plus a whole lot of other ideas). Keep in mind that swing space has been under debate for almost 3 years now -- believe me, everything under the sun has been proposed, debated, and (hopefully) explored seriously by DGS.

The bottom line is simply that it is going to be expensive to safely accommodate 700 little kids for two years given the scope of the construction project needed to transform an 85 year old building on one small, restricted block, built for 388 students into a modern facility for 730 students. Nothing about this project is easy.

Honestly, it would have been easier for DCPS to find another location to build a totally new, smaller elementary school because basically that is what they are doing. They are just cramming it in next to and on the same small lot as an existing school.

Good to hear that everything has been explored but frankly I would like to hear from DGS what they looked at and why certain sites have been rejected/not looked at further (like lafayette, udc, etc). They haven't done that yet. And then propose a real solution. Hopefully at tonight's meeting there will be more clarity and a thought out proposal given the years everyone has spent discussing this...

Yes, this is what's missing--a full accounting of the options explored and why they've been rejected. The general assumption is that DGS is half-assing it and looking at on-site swing as the most expedient option. That might not be the case, but they need to prove it.

[Anonymous]

Brief summary:

The plans look much better--they addressed most/all of the issues raised at the last meeting. Parking underground, partially underground cafeteria. Smaller footprint for the new building. Contiguous playspace. They can build playground, soccer field, etc. on the NPS land.

They are considering on- and off-site swing space options.

The onsite option has the kids staying in the current building and Kaufman wing, with the trailers on the bluetop being overtaken by construction and replaced with trailers on the NW corner. The old building would be modernized during the summer between the two school years.

Main offsite option is some combination of trailers on the Forest Hill Park field and space in the 7th Day Adventist Church next to it. THey claim they'll have a decision in the fall. They say offsite doesn't make the construction go any faster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brief summary:

The plans look much better--they addressed most/all of the issues raised at the last meeting. Parking underground, partially underground cafeteria. Smaller footprint for the new building. Contiguous playspace. They can build playground, soccer field, etc. on the NPS land.

They are considering on- and off-site swing space options.

The onsite option has the kids staying in the current building and Kaufman wing, with the trailers on the bluetop being overtaken by construction and replaced with trailers on the NW corner. The old building would be modernized during the summer between the two school years.

Main offsite option is some combination of trailers on the Forest Hill Park field and space in the 7th Day Adventist Church next to it. THey claim they'll have a decision in the fall. They say offsite doesn't make the construction go any faster.

Thanks so much!

[Anonymous]

That is a great swing space option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brief summary:

The plans look much better--they addressed most/all of the issues raised at the last meeting. Parking underground, partially underground cafeteria. Smaller footprint for the new building. Contiguous playspace. They can build playground, soccer field, etc. on the NPS land.

They are considering on- and off-site swing space options.

The onsite option has the kids staying in the current building and Kaufman wing, with the trailers on the bluetop being overtaken by construction and replaced with trailers on the NW corner. The old building would be modernized during the summer between the two school years.

Main offsite option is some combination of trailers on the Forest Hill Park field and space in the 7th Day Adventist Church next to it. THey claim they'll have a decision in the fall. They say offsite doesn't make the construction go any faster.

This is an extremely helpful summary. We are traveling and couldn't attend. A quick question about the cafeteria, it looks like it is next to the underground parking lot, along with the kitchen. Any discussion of air quality, possible contamination from exhaust fumes? Have they used this model in the past? Any examples given?

[Anonymous]

No, the lot entrance is off Reno. The cafeteria is at Davenport and 36th. There is a service entrance there but not the lot (not that there would be food contamination from the lag regardless).

[Anonymous]

Perhaps if dcps had not overspent on Ellington...

[Anonymous]

You mean DGS not DCPS.