Can we afford to get it wrong?

The following comes from a friend who wishes to remain anonymous.

After reviewing the minutes of the PTA's October 2011 meeting this entry caught my eye. Specifically the item highlighted in bold and blue. Following the project closely I then remembered Dan Rothschild's comments about the redesign on his blog Ledodesign.net which seems to present a different opinion. I've highlighted his comments in bold green. Shouldn't the PTA have questioned Dr. Steinhauer's assertion?
This is a huge financial undertaking for the community. Can we afford to get it wrong?
Anonymous

Mt. Lebanon City Council of PTA

General Assembly Meeting

October 5, 2011

3rd Vice President – Tim Steinhauer:  PSSA & other test results are being received by administration.  This allows for comparisons of our student achievement with other districts.  High School showing high scores for SAT & ACT.  HS Renovation project is moving ahead.  Bids will be received in November.  Most changes to the plans will not be visually noticeable with the exception of 1 floor being removed from the new building G (Science).  Interviewing for a Campus Manager at the HS.

From Lebodesign:

Clear Circulation: F
The current school has challenging circulation. One way to analyze circulation in the design is to look at classroom-to-classroom circulation patterns. This represents about three-quarters of a student’s path during the day. The initial design placed three levels of classrooms in the historic Building B and three levels of classrooms in the new Building G on the other side of campus. Travel distance between Building B and Building G is actually greater than the existing paths, a poor start to solving circulation problems. When the project was redesigned, the number of floors in Building G decreased to two levels, and the number of floors in Building B increased to four levels. Two of the floors in Building B are now totally disconnected from Building G, causing additional stair use. Simply stated, the classroom-to-classroom circulation is worse in the new design than existing conditions. This may cause the administration to add time between periods in order to allow students to get to their classes safely. 

Clear Circulation

Aesthetics: Incomplete
Architectural design should always include aesthetics as a criteria. The boldest and most interesting part of the design is the glass bridge that spans Horsman Drive and connects the athletic complex to the rest of the building. Adjacent to the bridge is the new rear entrance, which has looked very impressive in some of the renderings. Also of design interest is the large expanse of glass at the new pool that was shown in renderings. During the redesign process, it was stated that glass was replaced with metal panels in certain areas to save money. I recently requested the Board release before and after renderings of these major design areas that were changed. They have not yet done so. It is difficult to determine if these glass-to-metal changes are acceptable aesthetically, if the architects have not presented renderings that show the changes. As far as the rest of the design is concerned, the new long and low athletic building with its randomly-spaced slit windows, and the mostly repetitive façade of Building G (without the individual window sunscreens that were eliminated due to cost), it may simply be stated that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.