Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > October > 02 > Entry
Bricks vs. Kids, Round 1
OK, I got your attention with that headline. It was intended to be humorous.
Later this afternoon, the city plan board will consider the arguments for changing the zoning around the former Julienne High School, the first step that could lead to its designation as historic, which likely would block Dayton Public Schools from tearing it down.
In today’s paper, my colleague Joanne Huist Smith and I followed up with the Ohio School Facilities Commission and the neighbor and alumni groups opposed to the demolition plan after school board member Joe Lacey said the district was wrong or exagggerating some points in making it case for a new school.
The OSFC largely backed the district’s claim that renovation would be much more costly than a new building and some of the opponents expressed a willingness to at least discuss a partial demolition. Click the “continued” link for the whole story, including what did not make the paper due to space constraints.
In talking about this yesterday, a thought occurred to me. The portion of the building most “historic,” in terms of its connection with the saint-in-waiting Dorothy Stang, may be the chapel and the convent. If nothing else, perhaps those structures could be saved along with the auditorium and some of the building facades. I am not sure the classroom space is either very useful for the new school or especially historic.
Maybe an outside funding source be found to save the chapel and convent? That limited project might not be prohibitively expensive. Then perhaps new learning spaces could be built, incorporating the existing facades and the auditorium, by the district and OSFC? That way the chapel and convent, which are not very useful as school space anyway, could serve as a Dorothy Stang museum or some other community purpose. And the instructional space could be all-new but bear a likeness to the old school, serving the district’s needs.
Just a thought.
Scott Elliott and Joanne Huist Smith
Staff Writers
DAYTON — The city school district may choose to renovate the former Julienne High School building rather than replace it with a new building, but the cost for that project likely would be far higher, a state school construction official said Monday.
The city Plan Board meets this afternoon to consider amended zoning for Julienne, which would allow for it to receive protection and historic status.
Rick Savors, Ohio School Facilities Commission spokesman, said school districts can choose to renovate old buildings even if the state recommends a new school, as they have with Julienne.
But the state will share fewer costs on renovation projects, he said. There are three major limits — the state only not fund more space than is needed, it will not pay more than the cost of a new building and it will not pay for spaces that don’t conform to its guidelines. Savors said state evaluators literally will walk through the building and decide what rooms or spaces it will co-fund.
Those limits, Savors said, will raise the district’s cost for the project.
“There would be a significant cost in dealing with renovation of this building because of the excess square footage,” he said. “In some instances renovation works and in other instances it does not. Generally, we find the costs escalate.”
School board member Joe Lacey said not enough creative thinking has been applied to Julienne. Costs could be held down by selectively razing some parts of the building while saving others. He said the 2002 state evaluation of Dayton schools showed many could be rehabilitated at a reasonable cost even though the state recommended replacing nearly all of them.
“Historically, some renovations have come in at a lot more but it could be for other reasons,” he said. “These estimates I am looking at are all I have to go with. They show renovation costing less than construction.”
Savors said the 2002 estimates were designed only to guide decision-making for replacing schools.
“When we think the cost of renovation exceeds two-third the cost of a new school we normally say to take it off line,” he said. “We don’t just look at a building from a structural standpoint. We look at the educational efficiency of the building. Does it work for the way we educate students today?”
Mark Suda, president of the Five Oaks Neighborhood Improvement Association, said he would entertain discussions with the school district on rehabbing half of the Julienne building, then demolishing the remainder for new construction.
That doesn’t mean the Five Oaks Neighborhood or the Julienne Alumni Association will stop their campaign to gain protective historic zoning for the 1928-era building.
“We don’t have a whole lot of trust this will happen, if the building doesn’t get HD-3 historic status, that it won’t be gone in a couple of months,” Suda said.
Suda suggested that since the building — with cloisters of small practice rooms — worked so well as a swing building for Stivers Hill School of the Arts, that it should be converted into a feeder school for Stivers, one of the district’s most successful programs.
Plan Board Member Donna Martin will be absent from the dais when the Plan Board votes on whether to amend the zoning map for Julienne. Martin said she has a vested interest in the case. She wrote the preliminary nomination for Julienne’s nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. She’s worried that the Plan Board will postpone the case to give city staff time to speak with neighborhood groups. While on the surface that sounds like a good idea, it could open the door for speedy demise of the structure.
“The fear is that the school district will demolish the building before it goes to City Commission,” Martin said. “The FROC Priority Board, the Landmarks Commission, the Five Oaks Neighborhood, the Ohio Historic Preservation Office…All of these people have weighed in already.”
Martin said all voted in favor of preservation.
John Carr, the district’s construction chief, said demolition is expected in early spring and that the district couldn’t move faster than that because of the need to remove asbestos and take other prepatory steps before razing the building.
Permalink | Comments (15) | Categories: School Construction
Comments
By Rick
October 6, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
OldProf, I have not done any study of construction techniques, other than what I read about those used in the Roman Empire and Medieval Europe. I have been to Europe several times and notice how they preserve and update their buildings. I was also informed that the current new buildings were designed to last 50 years. Julienne has lasted much longer than that so it was designed much better. I also know that building lumber was much better some time ago. Compare lumber in an old building, with modern lumber, especially pine. The pine today is fast growth, low mass and density. Not so the old lumber.By Oldprof
October 4, 2007 8:59 PM | Link to this
Oh, Dave, sorry. I don’t intend to come off as the blog censor—that’s Scott’s job anyway, and I don’t mind if someone posts an opinion, ignorant or otherwise. I do wish that more people would either post solid evidence to support their conclusions, or else express them conditionally or pose questions. But that’s a matter of cultural values, not absolute standards.By Dave
October 4, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Mr. Elison is one of my favorite writers, and I guess I could respond with his good friend Robert Heinlein (anyone who can’t use a slide rule shouldn’t be allowed to vote),but the proper person to quote here would be Thomas Jefferson. After all, this is supposed to be an open dialogue of ALL folks with opinions on education, not just a select few who meet certain criteria.By Oldprof
October 4, 2007 7:42 AM | Link to this
I believe it was Harlan Ellison who said that, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, only an informed, considered opinion deserves respect. Does that answer your question, Dave?By Dave
October 3, 2007 9:40 PM | Link to this
Since you ask, Old Prof, I am an engineer with more than 25 years experience in designing, estimating, and building capital projects. I have also done my share of carpentry projects, I respect how difficult the job of School Board Member is, and I understand that the whole question of renovate vs. build new is rarely either easy or clear cut. And I live inside Dayton city limits. Am I allowed to have an opinion?By Oldprof
October 3, 2007 8:43 PM | Link to this
Gosh, Dave, I don’t know how much knowledge Rick has. That’s why I asked. I know I have a bit—primarily carpentry training—and many of my in-laws have made careers in commercial renovations or concrete flatwork. But my point is this: the Ohio Facilities Commission and John Carr both know a good deal about construction; when they speak, I tend to listen. If someone wants to contradict their opinions, then I’d like to know if there’s any expert support or if they’re just spouting. SO, Dave buddy, what’s YOUR area of expertise?By Dave
October 3, 2007 6:32 PM | Link to this
OK, Old Prof, you opened this particular can of worms. Do you have any more background in construction than Rick?By Oldprof
October 3, 2007 7:32 AM | Link to this
Let’s summarize: the board speaks with forked tongues (never mind that six of them have been saying all along what the OFC confirmed), Rick “guesses” that the building, renovated, will last 100 years (Rick, have you any knowledge of construction), concrete and all other construction materials cost twice as much (which raises costs for both renovation and new construction), and Hater thinks someone besides himself is arrogant and unpleasant. I for one am contemplating moving away if I can find a place where people respect expertise and make decisions based on evidence rather than wild unsupported accusations.By urban_girl75
October 2, 2007 10:36 PM | Link to this
As a resident of Dayton and a DPS teacher, I believe this is a decision that needs to be left to the taxpayers. Preservation Dayton is very invovled with trying to save these buildings, but the support of the community is needed. The board should not have the only authority to sell something without the input of the taxpayers.By charterschoolhater
October 2, 2007 10:34 PM | Link to this
I just read the updated story that the city planning board tabled a decision to give the julienne group and the DPS time to work on a compromise suitable to both parties. What I was struck by was the comment about poor poor John Carr claiming people have attacked him personally over this issue. I don’t feel sorry for him. It comes with his job. I have only talked to John Carr once. I found him to be obstinate and arrogant and I hope I never speak to him again. Maybe the people were right to attack him. The John Carr I know maybe deserved it. What I don’t understand is this. The DPS is trying to get a levy passed. So what do they do in their infinite arrogance? Anger off some of the same citizens they want to vote yes on a levy. Gail and Percy you are you are so smart. Anger people and hope they vote yes on a levy. The children of Dayton are in real trouble with these two clowns calling the shots. I and the 7 other registered voters in my family vote NO on your levy. Now and always until Percy and Gail are long gone.By David
October 2, 2007 9:41 PM | Link to this
Sell the building to the neighborhood association or the Catholic church if they place so much value on it. The school district can’t afford to play sentimental games.By Laura
October 2, 2007 9:41 PM | Link to this
Not only can the district ill-afford to spend more money than necessary, it can’t afford to alienate more citizens than necessary. I have no loyalty to Julienne, but it seems that a lot of people do. At the very least I think they need to think through and thoroughly research this decision before going ahead with the decision to tear it down. Instead of just going ahead with their original plans they need to make a well-informed decision, at least once.By Rick
October 2, 2007 7:33 PM | Link to this
If I recall, during the introduction of the plan for Cleveland it was stated these school were designed to last a long time, 50 years. (Sarcasm off). By renovating a building like Julienne, we could avoid the cost of building two new buildings because its my guess it will last at least another 100 years.By Who 2 Believe?
October 2, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this
In the comments for Sunday’s article Joe Lacey said twice that the OSFC was his source for the claim that renovating would be cheaper than building new. Scott’s article today has an OSFC spokesman saying just the opposite - that building new would be cheaper. Now I’m just confused cuz I lean toward saving Julienne but this poorly run district - led by a Board who’s only unanimity seems to be talking with forked tongues (regardless of the issue)- can ill afford to bleed out any more money. UgggghBy Dave
October 2, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Concrete has skyrocketed in cost the last few years. Shouldn’t these 2002 estimates be updated to account for that?