Someone sent this article to me this morning. It raises an interesting question. Are open classrooms a fireman's nightmare? Maybe someone from the fire department can comment on this article. After ruinous fire, school's mission restored
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
From the article: "The fire did contribute one unintended blessing: Takoma's 1970s-era building has an "open classroom" design that did away with walls. It's a feature that Taylor despises and was eager to eliminate.
Takoma now has walls, albeit acquired the hard way."
Aren't classrooms without walls or least large open common study areas one of the big features of the Celli redesigned school?
Tacoma despised their "open classrooms" and were eager to eliminate them-- conversely the MTL administration just can't wait to open them up. Something is amiss here.
Furthermore, can anyone explain to me why "Mr. Stengel's 21st century classroom" isn't working in that 1972 era room? Appears to be functioning just fine!
Also, why wouldn't they have constructed this "futuristic" classroom in a wing of the complex they're retaining instead of in the building they're trying to tear down? We'd have at least one updated classroom done rather than recreating it all over again!
Center Court was built in the early 70's and was wide open. Didn't Dirk Taylor say that he "saw" kids throwing stuff over the side and then it had to be sealed off? And now we get to go through that again. Remember how I have been saying we have a bad plan? I love what was written on the Center Court blog:
"During the past few weeks, many of us have gotten some very helpful feedback from community members who work in the building industry. PJ Dick continues to review feedback from some of the bidders. All of this information is helping us to refine the plans and move toward rebidding. We expect a firmer timeline available in June and appreciate your feedback and suggestions."
Only in the last few weeks, have they been getting helpful feedback from community members in the building industry? Now they appreciate feedback and suggestions? Elaine
Could someone clear up a conflict for me? I believe I heard it mentioned in the one of latest board discussions that there was a need to get MORE contractors interested in the HS bidding process-- am I correct?
Yet on Posti's blog around April 26th she wrote: "Due to a high level of interest from contractors, we’ve extended the bid submittal deadline by one week and plan to take action on accepting bids at a special meeting on April 25. Shortly thereafter, we will begin construction."
Are they now saying they need an even higher level of interest from contractors than we had from the "high level" that caused April's delay? Or is this just another example of the board/administration not being able to keep the facts straight?
I'm always open to evidence that I've gotten my facts wrong.
This came up at the first post-bid meeting with John Taormina and Tom Celli. One of the directors (can't remember who...) asked about the number of bidders, given that he or she was under the same impression as yourself.
The answer back from the CM was that the interest came in the form of requests for the bid documents, not necessarily in finished and submitted bids. I'm not sure a number was given of how many interested firms there were.
From some of the comments from residents later in the same meeting, (one of whom was Dan Rothschild from the CAC, if memory serves) it sounded like the number of bids received was average to above-average for projects of this size and/or nature.
So I'm not sure if there is a measure of the amount of "window shopping" to expect from potential bidders, but that is what the CM said has occurred.
(This is all from memory too, btw, so my apologies if I've misstated [yes, two s ;)] any facts. Take it for what you will)
Thanks Matt for confirming that I remembered of the conversation.
Brings us to this quote from PJDick's president published in The Almanac. "PJ Dick's president also weighed in, insisting his firm was committed to seeing the process through but that it would take time." "It's going to take probably four or five months (to prepare to re-bid)," Rowe said. "But I know some contractors who bid this job knew it was going to be over budget, so they didn't show their hands. I don't blame them, I've played the same game." Still, he urged the board not to be overzealous with its cuts. "I don't think you're going to get another $8 million or $9 million out of this job," he said."
So, if contractors knew it was going to come in over budget and didn't want to "play their hand," how many just said "screw it, we're not getting messed up in this fiasco" and walked away?
If Rowe's right about contractors determining in a short span of time the project was going to be over budget... what were our hired guns doing (owners rep, Celli, administration, MDT and PJDick) the whole time?
5 comments:
From the article: "The fire did contribute one unintended blessing: Takoma's 1970s-era building has an "open classroom" design that did away with walls. It's a feature that Taylor despises and was eager to eliminate.
Takoma now has walls, albeit acquired the hard way."
Aren't classrooms without walls or least large open common study areas one of the big features of the Celli redesigned school?
Tacoma despised their "open classrooms" and were eager to eliminate them-- conversely the MTL administration just can't wait to open them up. Something is amiss here.
Furthermore, can anyone explain to me why "Mr. Stengel's 21st century classroom" isn't working in that 1972 era room? Appears to be functioning just fine!
Also, why wouldn't they have constructed this "futuristic" classroom in a wing of the complex they're retaining instead of in the building they're trying to tear down? We'd have at least one updated classroom done rather than recreating it all over again!
Dick Saunders
Center Court was built in the early 70's and was wide open. Didn't Dirk Taylor say that he "saw" kids throwing stuff over the side and then it had to be sealed off? And now we get to go through that again. Remember how I have been saying we have a bad plan?
I love what was written on the Center Court blog:
"During the past few weeks, many of us have gotten some very helpful feedback from community members who work in the building industry. PJ Dick continues to review feedback from some of the bidders. All of this information is helping us to refine the plans and move toward rebidding. We expect a firmer timeline available in June and appreciate your feedback and suggestions."
Only in the last few weeks, have they been getting helpful feedback from community members in the building industry? Now they appreciate feedback and suggestions?
Elaine
Could someone clear up a conflict for me?
I believe I heard it mentioned in the one of latest board discussions that there was a need to get MORE contractors interested in the HS bidding process-- am I correct?
Yet on Posti's blog around April 26th she wrote:
"Due to a high level of interest from contractors, we’ve extended the bid submittal deadline by one week and plan to take action on accepting bids at a special meeting on April 25. Shortly thereafter, we will begin construction."
Are they now saying they need an even higher level of interest from contractors than we had from the "high level" that caused April's delay? Or is this just another example of the board/administration not being able to keep the facts straight?
I'm always open to evidence that I've gotten my facts wrong.
- Giffen Good
Giffen,
This came up at the first post-bid meeting with John Taormina and Tom Celli. One of the directors (can't remember who...) asked about the number of bidders, given that he or she was under the same impression as yourself.
The answer back from the CM was that the interest came in the form of requests for the bid documents, not necessarily in finished and submitted bids. I'm not sure a number was given of how many interested firms there were.
From some of the comments from residents later in the same meeting, (one of whom was Dan Rothschild from the CAC, if memory serves) it sounded like the number of bids received was average to above-average for projects of this size and/or nature.
So I'm not sure if there is a measure of the amount of "window shopping" to expect from potential bidders, but that is what the CM said has occurred.
(This is all from memory too, btw, so my apologies if I've misstated [yes, two s ;)] any facts. Take it for what you will)
Thanks Matt for confirming that I remembered of the conversation.
Brings us to this quote from PJDick's president published in The Almanac.
"PJ Dick's president also weighed in, insisting his firm was committed to seeing the process through but that it would take time."
"It's going to take probably four or five months (to prepare to re-bid)," Rowe said. "But I know some contractors who bid this job knew it was going to be over budget, so they didn't show their hands. I don't blame them, I've played the same game." Still, he urged the board not to be overzealous with its cuts. "I don't think you're going to get another $8 million or $9 million out of this job," he said."
So, if contractors knew it was going to come in over budget and didn't want to "play their hand," how many just said "screw it, we're not getting messed up in this fiasco" and walked away?
If Rowe's right about contractors determining in a short span of time the project was going to be over budget... what were our hired guns doing (owners rep, Celli, administration, MDT and PJDick) the whole time?
- Giffen Good
Post a Comment