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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Murch PTA should find space and then suggest it to DCPS? Seems like a mistake to leave these logistics to DCPS. Not a knock on Murch and maybe they are already doing this, but I can't imagine that DCPS is going to look hard/ spend a lot of money so Murch should step it up maybe.

Of course Murch has been proposing sites to DGS/DCPS for two years now.

Why don't they set up Murch trailers in the DPR park/field at Chesapeake east of Conn Ave? It's a huge space, there's a public park on the site for recess etc, the drop off, pick up, walkers would have essentially the same commute, and you would not be stuffing 1400 kids into Lafayette (no matter how spacious), the car traffic would be crazy bc now so many Lafayette kids walk to school as it is, plus parking for twice as many teachers and administrators - does not seem feasible.

Toilets?

Umm there are trailer toilets, of course! What do you think every other trailer 'school' uses? There are going to be trailer bathrooms at Lafayette.

Key's trailers don't have bathrooms. The PTA bought water coolers for drinking water and the kids have to walk into the main building to use the bathrooms.

But that's clearly impractical during a renovation, where there is no building to walk into.

The old trailers at Lafayette -- that were used for overflow classrooms -- also didn't have bathrooms. But the swing space trailers have to have bathrooms because the main building is off limits.

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

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they shouldn't be trying to build a school for 730 in this lot if it is this difficult and expensive? Did that ever come up in these meetings?

That's crazy talk. Enrollment at WOTP schools moves in one direction only, upward. Particularly true of WOTP Deal feeders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Murch PTA should find space and then suggest it to DCPS? Seems like a mistake to leave these logistics to DCPS. Not a knock on Murch and maybe they are already doing this, but I can't imagine that DCPS is going to look hard/ spend a lot of money so Murch should step it up maybe.

Of course Murch has been proposing sites to DGS/DCPS for two years now.

Why don't they set up Murch trailers in the DPR park/field at Chesapeake east of Conn Ave? It's a huge space, there's a public park on the site for recess etc, the drop off, pick up, walkers would have essentially the same commute, and you would not be stuffing 1400 kids into Lafayette (no matter how spacious), the car traffic would be crazy bc now so many Lafayette kids walk to school as it is, plus parking for twice as many teachers and administrators - does not seem feasible.

Toilets?

Umm there are trailer toilets, of course! What do you think every other trailer 'school' uses? There are going to be trailer bathrooms at Lafayette.

Key's trailers don't have bathrooms. The PTA bought water coolers for drinking water and the kids have to walk into the main building to use the bathrooms.

Maybe they shouldn't be trying to build a school for 730 in this lot if it is this difficult and expensive? Did that ever come up in these meetings?

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.

School was in Shaw. They bussed them from our school, so we didn't deal with commute. Unfortunately there is no perfect solution. It's going to be a rough two years for Murch families no matter where you swing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why not at UDC? They must be able to make swing space there?

That is a great idea.
Also DCPS has some sites they use for swing space. When our school was renovated, they bussed kids across town to a former DCPS used for swing space.

Not sure I would want my 4 year old to share the same space with college aged students. Also I believe this idea has been considered and for whatever reason been decided won't work, but not sure. As far as bussing kids across town to use what I suspect is an outdated old DCPS building, not up to code, not sure that makes the most sense either both in from a health and logistics stand point. What building was this swing space in? How long was the commute from your NWDc school in morning (and evening) rush hour traffic?

Anonymous wrote:why not at UDC? They must be able to make swing space there?

That is a great idea.
Also DCPS has some sites they use for swing space. When our school was renovated, they bussed kids across town to a former DCPS used for swing space.

why not at UDC? They must be able to make swing space there?

Agree that having the swing space at Murch is inadequate. Unlike Lafayette and Hearst, there is no outdoor overflow space for recess/PE on the Murch site. With the renovation estimated to take 18-24 months, that is a lot of time for a lot of kids to have no outdoor space.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Murch PTA should find space and then suggest it to DCPS? Seems like a mistake to leave these logistics to DCPS. Not a knock on Murch and maybe they are already doing this, but I can't imagine that DCPS is going to look hard/ spend a lot of money so Murch should step it up maybe.

Of course Murch has been proposing sites to DGS/DCPS for two years now.

Why don't they set up Murch trailers in the DPR park/field at Chesapeake east of Conn Ave? It's a huge space, there's a public park on the site for recess etc, the drop off, pick up, walkers would have essentially the same commute, and you would not be stuffing 1400 kids into Lafayette (no matter how spacious), the car traffic would be crazy bc now so many Lafayette kids walk to school as it is, plus parking for twice as many teachers and administrators - does not seem feasible.

Because the park belongs to and is used by the whole city, not just Murch students.

So why is taking the Lafayette field and its two baseball fields out of commission for two additional years OK? The whole city uses those, too.

And the Hearst space also.

By the way the trailers have actual plumbing. They aren't just port-a-potties which are pumped out in there. This is why Lafayette or Hearst would be perfect.

Not sure that Hearst space would work. I assume you would have to use the lower soccer fields, but the drainage on those fields is very poor. You'd have to do a bunch of work (which would be quite welcome) to make that usable. In addition, the combined Hearst-Sidwell drop-off and pick-up times already makes the area very difficult. Adding another school would be even more challenging. Lafayette makes a lot more sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per HSA email update:

Tomorrow's meeting is now at 6, not 5:30.

New proposal is linked in the email. The new plans look much better to me. But they are proposing to swing on-site, which I suspect will (rightfully) get a lot of pushback at the meeting.

Much, much better. Actually used the extra $$ to build underground, which is what it was meant for. The swing space slide is totally confusing. 9 extra classrooms? How is that going to hold the entire school?

Swing space will definitely need to be addressed. Don't know how they expect to set up swing space at Murch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the Murch PTA should find space and then suggest it to DCPS? Seems like a mistake to leave these logistics to DCPS. Not a knock on Murch and maybe they are already doing this, but I can't imagine that DCPS is going to look hard/ spend a lot of money so Murch should step it up maybe.

Of course Murch has been proposing sites to DGS/DCPS for two years now.

Why don't they set up Murch trailers in the DPR park/field at Chesapeake east of Conn Ave? It's a huge space, there's a public park on the site for recess etc, the drop off, pick up, walkers would have essentially the same commute, and you would not be stuffing 1400 kids into Lafayette (no matter how spacious), the car traffic would be crazy bc now so many Lafayette kids walk to school as it is, plus parking for twice as many teachers and administrators - does not seem feasible.

Because the park belongs to and is used by the whole city, not just Murch students.

So why is taking the Lafayette field and its two baseball fields out of commission for two additional years OK? The whole city uses those, too.

And the Hearst space also.

By the way the trailers have actual plumbing. They aren't just port-a-potties which are pumped out in there. This is why Lafayette or Hearst would be perfect.