Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

It was the third home of GDS's HS. First was a former hardware store, second was a building on what is now GWU's Mt Vernon campus.

[Anonymous]

there are lots of schools in nyc that have nothing but their rooftops and a gym for athletic facilities. They are the best day schools in the country, if not the world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there are lots of schools in nyc that have nothing but their rooftops and a gym for athletic facilities. They are the best day schools in the country, if not the world

Perhaps, but that's not *why* they're good schools. Yes, rooftop space is better than nothing -- if that's the alternative. But it doesn't have to be in this case. Is there any example of an NYC school that started out with a ground-level playing field, then purchased additional land, and subsequently relocated its field to a rooftop? Because that's what's happening here. Putting the L/MS field on the roof didn't start out a necessity. It became even less of a necessity with the acquisition of additional acreage at the Tenleytown campus. But it's happening in order to serve the interests of a developer.

Reasonable people may disagree over whether serving the developer's interests will ultimately serve the school's financial interests. It's an empirical question and probably one where no one with access to all the relevant info will ever have an incentive to produce a honest accounting. But let's not kid ourselves that this land use decision will come at the expense of educational facilities. After devoting over $40 million to land acquisition and asking donors for $50+ million to rebuild the L/MS facilities, GDS will end up with a smaller campus (serving more students) than it started out with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there are lots of schools in nyc that have nothing but their rooftops and a gym for athletic facilities. They are the best day schools in the country, if not the world

Perhaps, but that's not *why* they're good schools. Yes, rooftop space is better than nothing -- if that's the alternative. But it doesn't have to be in this case. Is there any example of an NYC school that started out with a ground-level playing field, then purchased additional land, and subsequently relocated its field to a rooftop? Because that's what's happening here. Putting the L/MS field on the roof didn't start out a necessity. It became even less of a necessity with the acquisition of additional acreage at the Tenleytown campus. But it's happening in order to serve the interests of a developer.

Reasonable people may disagree over whether serving the developer's interests will ultimately serve the school's financial interests. It's an empirical question and probably one where no one with access to all the relevant info will ever have an incentive to produce a honest accounting. But let's not kid ourselves that this land use decision will come at the expense of educational facilities. After devoting over $40 million to land acquisition and asking donors for $50+ million to rebuild the L/MS facilities, GDS will end up with a smaller campus (serving more students) than it started out with.

I agree with you - believe me - I agree with you. GDS missed the boat by failing to secure land when it was available along Foxhall - land that Field and St. Patricks were able to secure. Tragic lack of foresight by the school and its board. However, now the school is stuck and it will have to make the best of the current situation. It is what it is.

[Anonymous]

RE it is what it is. Not really. There are important choices to be made. Currently, there is no deal with a developer re the Wisconsin Avenue properties. No deal has been made to sell the lower/middle school campus. No funds have been secured yet to rebuild those facilities. A variety of different options are still available, but don't seem to be under consideration.

[Anonymous]

If the economy tanks again before GDS has secured the various financial vehicles to see the project through, they could be in trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there are lots of schools in nyc that have nothing but their rooftops and a gym for athletic facilities. They are the best day schools in the country, if not the world

Perhaps, but that's not *why* they're good schools. Yes, rooftop space is better than nothing -- if that's the alternative. But it doesn't have to be in this case. Is there any example of an NYC school that started out with a ground-level playing field, then purchased additional land, and subsequently relocated its field to a rooftop? Because that's what's happening here. Putting the L/MS field on the roof didn't start out a necessity. It became even less of a necessity with the acquisition of additional acreage at the Tenleytown campus. But it's happening in order to serve the interests of a developer.

Reasonable people may disagree over whether serving the developer's interests will ultimately serve the school's financial interests. It's an empirical question and probably one where no one with access to all the relevant info will ever have an incentive to produce a honest accounting. But let's not kid ourselves that this land use decision will come at the expense of educational facilities. After devoting over $40 million to land acquisition and asking donors for $50+ million to rebuild the L/MS facilities, GDS will end up with a smaller campus (serving more students) than it started out with.

I agree with you - believe me - I agree with you. GDS missed the boat by failing to secure land when it was available along Foxhall - land that Field and St. Patricks were able to secure. Tragic lack of foresight by the school and its board. However, now the school is stuck and it will have to make the best of the current situation. It is what it is.

Definitely missed the Field boat, but was it even possible for them to be contenders for the Foxhall property owned by St. Pat's? Didn't a handful of St Pat's families step in and buy it for the school?

[Anonymous]

If St. Pat's families could buy it, I assume anyone in the world could have bought it, including GDS - which is right in the neighborhood too.

[Anonymous]

In understand that the St. Pats land was actually offered to St. Pat's specifically (from a connected parent or alum?), so I don't think that GDS would have had the option.


I, for one, am happy to see GDS located near a metro. It means much better access for students, families, faculty, and staff, who might not otherwise be able to attend the school. The fact of the matter is that the Palisades location meant that only family with the time and means to commute to that location were able to send their kids there--i.e., relatively wealthy families.

As for the commercial development, having a vibrant retail and residential is a plus. It means more tax revenue for the city, more jobs, and better retail as well as housing that is near public transit. As for the traffic issue, so long as GDS is able to control the carpool situation--which I am sure they will since they can design from scratch--I don't think that neighbors who purchased property off of Wisconsin near a Metro stop have a right to complain all that much.

[Anonymous]

In understand that the St. Pats land was actually offered to St. Pat's specifically (from a connected parent or alum?), so I don't think that GDS would have had the option.

St. Pat's machers are obviously more forward thinking than GDS' machers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:-I don't think that neighbors who purchased property off of Wisconsin near a Metro stop have a right to complain all that much.

Well, they do have the right and they use it vigorously. Note this from yesterday about freaking bikes on a nearby street:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/27015/making-this-street-more-bike-friendly-should-be-easy-why-isnt-it/

The same people fighting this are the ones who will fight GDS, fought Tenley Hill and Safeway and Akridge and, well you get the picture.

[Anonymous]

"The fact of the matter is that the Palisades location meant that only family with the time and means to commute to that location were able to send their kids there--i.e., relatively wealthy families. "

This makes no sense. Only rich people are allowed to drive to Palisades? I've never noticed the signs on MacArthur Blvd, banning people with middle and low incomes. Not to mention, GDS lower and middle school are already located in this high class section of DC - which - when I was a kid, was the last refuge of the now extinct DC redneck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The fact of the matter is that the Palisades location meant that only family with the time and means to commute to that location were able to send their kids there--i.e., relatively wealthy families. "

This makes no sense. Only rich people are allowed to drive to Palisades? I've never noticed the signs on MacArthur Blvd, banning people with middle and low incomes. Not to mention, GDS lower and middle school are already located in this high class section of DC - which - when I was a kid, was the last refuge of the now extinct DC redneck.

PP, you really don't understand this? Folks working two jobs, don't have a car, etc would need to jump through multiple hoops to get there. The logistics require time and money and that is what makes it exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The fact of the matter is that the Palisades location meant that only family with the time and means to commute to that location were able to send their kids there--i.e., relatively wealthy families. "

This makes no sense. Only rich people are allowed to drive to Palisades? I've never noticed the signs on MacArthur Blvd, banning people with middle and low incomes. Not to mention, GDS lower and middle school are already located in this high class section of DC - which - when I was a kid, was the last refuge of the now extinct DC redneck.

PP, you really don't understand this? Folks working two jobs, don't have a car, etc would need to jump through multiple hoops to get there. The logistics require time and money and that is what makes it exclusive.

No I dont. GDS already has 600 kids in the Palisades. Tuition is already 35k+ a year. GDS alumni road the D-4 and the D-6 to attend high school when it was located at the current River School. In addition to GDS, there are several other private schools in the palisades neighborhood. You don't want to admit GDS missed an important opportunity to secure land in a more logical area for the future of the school, but them'so the facts. Now the school is in a unfortunate situation with its campus. IF it doesn't consolidate, it will be hemmed in by commercial construction.

[Anonymous]

Rode