Grand Rapids Public Schools

[Kayak1]

According to the web site of the Gates Foundation, Grand Rapids Public Schools received $500,000 in 2003 to help gain community support for its school redesign efforts. There was no mention of any money going to East Grand Rapids Schools.

[Mark Miller]

I would like to make a few comments regarding many of the things discussed in this thread.

Lighthouse Dave:

Actually GRPS did not pass the millage, the voters in Grand Rapids passed the millage. I am sure you do not believe that because GRPS supposedly cannot afford books (which is not true) we should not build state of the art buildings for our students?

I agree Dave. Again, the perception of GRPS not being able to afford books is totally incorrect and once again creating a poor image for the district. I also agree that building state of the art buildings for the students is important, especially because every other district (the competition) is doing the same.

I would also go as far to say that many of the new buildings appear to be very impressive on the inside and thus create a better learning environment. I would include in that the remodeling that is going on at Fountain Elementary, which I am told looks very good. In general, the inside of these buildings can compete with anything that has been built in the surrounding suburbs.

The GRPS needs to be commended on taking these steps to make for a better physical environment of the schools AND maybe changing the direction of the perception.

As a city resident, I can see positive progress. I can see where the millage money is going. I think overall things are looking more positive than they have in years.

But....

I live a few blocks from Henry School and go by it frequently. I have also have driven by Alger and Sibley. While these buildings are impressive, especially from the inside, they leave much to be desired from the outside. They are no different than the standard fare of the suburban schools in their design both architecturally and urbanistically. I almost feel as though something from Forest Hills was picked-up and dropped into my neighborhood, and that is unfortunate. I realize that what I am saying is a bit contradictory to what I said about the interiors above. I have no problem with the standard school interiors being used across the board, I do, however, have a problem with standard solutions for the exterior, especially when these standards are set by suburban context.

The western wall of the new Henry school is blank. How anti-urban is that. It has all the friendliness of a dentention facility. What does this say to the neighborhood.

Lighthouse Dave -

Some of our early buildings were not built LEED certified, however incredible work was done to ensure that they are environmentally friendly, energy efficient buildings. People should note the roof top garden on the Henry building. Overall it is an incredible learning environment. Our newest buildings however will be LEED certified.

The other thing that is troublesome is this whole environmentally friendly mentality. I watched the old Henry School being torn down. All the brick, limestone, concrete, and other building materials being hauled away to a landfill. If we really wanted to be environmentally friendly, this old building should not have been torn down. It should have been adapted to another use or used as a school. That would have been more enviromentally friendly than using all the energy to tear it down and build a new school.

The old Henry school incidentally was sited properly for an urban school, it had a dignified entry and a great presence - from all sides. It felt has though it anchored the neighborhood. It had dignity. It also had some pretty nice detail, all of which was ripped down in a matter of days and lost forever. It is painful to see these buildings so easily dismissed when they are so much more compatible to the neighborhood than the buildings that replaced them.

[suydam]

I thought I heard that East Grand Rapids Public Schools received Gates Foundation money a few years ago. Is this correct and how did they do it?

Gates gives money to lots of public schools including Chicago and Grand Rapids. I didn't find anything about EGR when I was Googling, but that wouldn't surprise me either.

Grants are a common way for cash-strapped schools to get money for specific projects. It's not operating costs as much as "wouldn't it be nice to have free wireless in all schools" type requests. A grant, by its nature, is one-time, so they wouldn't look to grants to fund day-to-day type things, but I'm sure they're a huge help.

Heck, my wife used to teach and used grants from her local community foundation to do something as simple as take the kids on a field trip to a museum.

[mejane]

They passed a millage a couple of years back that was specifically earmarked for new construction and building improvements. So thats where all this dough is coming from. Seems kind of stupid though considering some schools can't afford to supply books for students and yet they are bulding these million dollar facilities just down the street.

But it's a fabulous start, beginning where students actually finally have

a school building where the toilets flush and they can develop some school

pride and ending with a sense of self worth.

Wanna help? Volunteer to be a mentor, a tutor, or go read to the first graders.

Bring a book.

[snoogit]

But it's a fabulous start, beginning where students actually finally have

a school building where the toilets flush and they can develop some school

pride and ending with a sense of self worth.

Wanna help? Volunteer to be a mentor, a tutor, or go read to the first graders.

Bring a book.

I'm pretty sure the toilets flushed at GRPS...

but still, new buildings seem to bring out new hopes amoung the staff and students, which is what GRPS needs more then anything. Sometimes old buildings if not properly taken care of tend to just cause all sorts of drags on the staff... Even if they are beautiful old buildings, for some reason new buildings tend to (not always) reinvigorate schools.

[gat]

Gates gives money to lots of public schools including Chicago and Grand Rapids. I didn't find anything about EGR when I was Googling, but that wouldn't surprise me either.

Grants are a common way for cash-strapped schools to get money for specific projects. It's not operating costs as much as "wouldn't it be nice to have free wireless in all schools" type requests. A grant, by its nature, is one-time, so they wouldn't look to grants to fund day-to-day type things, but I'm sure they're a huge help.

Heck, my wife used to teach and used grants from her local community foundation to do something as simple as take the kids on a field trip to a museum.

Oh, it was GRPS thanks for the clarification

[snoogit]

The other thing that is troublesome is this whole environmentally friendly mentality. I watched the old Henry School being torn down. All the brick, limestone, concrete, and other building materials being hauled away to a landfill.

Are we sure they went to a landfill? just because its being thrown in a dumpster doesnt mean its heading to a landfill. My guess is they did a study of which schools could be and couldnt be renovated, and my guess would be Henry couldn't be renovated, for whatever reason.

[RustTown]

Nice! It looks like urban school districts in most of Michigan's cities are getting some needed upgrades. Here is a rendering of the new Pattengill Middle School almost complete in Lansing:

It looks like school architecture is really going postmodern.

[Kayak1]

Like all buildings, some just get to a point and the cost to remove the asbestos and lead paint along with renovating all major systems and installing fire protection is just not cost effective.

Most demolition contractors are recycling steel, masonry and concrete these days so it is not likely that it all went to a landfill.

[Mark Miller]

So, the cost of demolition and then construction of a new building is cheaper than renovating the old building. Removing paint (or encapsulation), new mechanical systems, fire protection can not cost more than construction of a new building.

This kind of process is compromised. A consultant is hired to do a feasibility study of renovating the building versus new construction. The consultant is an architect. The architect wants to build new, because it is certainly easier than dealing with all the hassles of the old building. And, on top of that, the architect can not fully express their creative genius by dealing with the old building.

I have been on this side of these studies before. I honestly can not believe that it is more cost effective to build new versus rehabbing old, in most cases. It is also not sustainable to do so, whether or not things get recycled.

We live in a culture where new is better and bigger is better. That is reflective across the board. It is unfortunate.

The loss of the existing Henry building can not be justified by the new building. It was not an even trade.

[snoogit]

So, the cost of demolition and then construction of a new building is cheaper than renovating the old building. Removing paint (or encapsulation), new mechanical systems, fire protection can not cost more than construction of a new building.

This kind of process is compromised. A consultant is hired to do a feasibility study of renovating the building versus new construction. The consultant is an architect. The architect wants to build new, because it is certainly easier than dealing with all the hassles of the old building. And, on top of that, the architect can not fully express their creative genius by dealing with the old building.

I have been on this side of these studies before. I honestly can not believe that it is more cost effective to build new versus rehabbing old, in most cases. It is also not sustainable to do so, whether or not things get recycled.

We live in a culture where new is better and bigger is better. That is reflective across the board. It is unfortunate.

The loss of the existing Henry building can not be justified by the new building. It was not an even trade.

Depending on the materials removed, demolition might not cost a thing. especially if the demo team gets to harvest all the copper in the old building, they would probably demo for free (making all the profits off of selling the old materials)

[Mark Miller]

Depending on the materials removed, demolition might not cost a thing. especially if the demo team gets to harvest all the copper in the old building, they would probably demo for free (making all the profits off of selling the old materials)

It may not cost anything directly, but what about the social costs to the neighborhood when it loses a properly executed urban building?

And what about the energy expended to tear down the building and excavate for a new building? This ain't hand labor and those machines have an economic cost and an environmental cost. Have you ever watched how labor intensive it is to build a simple parking lot, the amount of trucks coming in and out of the site and the amount of earth moving equipment on site.

Whether these demolished pieces actually end up being recycled or not is a bit questionable as well. In the book Cradle to Cradle, the author discusses the recycling system in this country, which defaults to the lowest common denomitor of the products being recycled. So the quality of the output does not necessarily equal the quality of the input, in either value or in amount of energy excerted.

All costs need to be weighed in making these decisions and right now they are not.

[DwntwnGeo]

It may not cost anything directly, but what about the social costs to the neighborhood when it loses a properly executed urban building?

And what about the energy expended to tear down the building and excavate for a new building? This ain't hand labor and those machines have an economic cost and an environmental cost. Have you ever watched how labor intensive it is to build a simple parking lot, the amount of trucks coming in and out of the site and the amount of earth moving equipment on site.

Whether these demolished pieces actually end up being recycled or not is a bit questionable as well. In the book Cradle to Cradle, the author discusses the recycling system in this country, which defaults to the lowest common denomitor of the products being recycled. So the quality of the output does not necessarily equal the quality of the input, in either value or in amount of energy excerted.

All costs need to be weighed in making these decisions and right now they are not.

And there isn't any energy expended to to rehab an existing building? There isn't extra cost to put up barriers to contain contamenients or special suits that may need to be required or worn at all time or air masks? It only takes one person to get sick and/or die and the world will call fowl because something wasn't done to prevent it. It all costs money and someone has to pay for it one way or another. From reading your posts here and other threads it gives me the opinion, there are unlimited funds to do everything possible to keep everything that was ever created or erected. (maybe it is just how I take your posts )

[Veloise]

So, the cost of demolition and then construction of a new building is cheaper than renovating the old building. ... A consultant is hired to do a feasibility study of renovating the building versus new construction. The consultant is an architect. The architect wants to build new, because it is certainly easier than dealing with all the hassles of the old building. And, on top of that, the architect can not fully express their creative genius by dealing with the old building.

...

MLUI.org has a study on school siting (the trend of smaller city school systems to Wal-Mart-ize their new school buildings, locating them on vacant land in the middle of nowhere), and it contains an article about rehabbing vs. new builds.

[Mark Miller]

And there isn't any energy expended to to rehab an existing building? There isn't extra cost to put up barriers to contain contamenients or special suits that may need to be required or worn at all time or air masks? It only takes one person to get sick and/or die and the world will call fowl because something wasn't done to prevent it. It all costs money and someone has to pay for it one way or another. From reading your posts here and other threads it gives me the opinion, there are unlimited funds to do everything possible to keep everything that was ever created or erected. (maybe it is just how I take your posts )

I think you are probably taking my posts correctly, sort of. I have yet to be convinced that new buildings can effectively replace old buildings and whether that is because today's designers don't get it, or that today's materials are, in many cases, inferior or whether simple politics don't allow it or because we as a society just don't care, is debatable. I realize that this is a general statement and when I refer to old buildings, I mean pre-WWII. And when I refer to new buildings I mean post-WWII. Again generally-because there are alway exceptions.

For me it becomes an issue of the value of what is replacing the thing being demolished. I have no problem tearing down Xavier Hall (built in 1960) and replacing it with the new St. Mary's construction. (I would have a problem with it being replaced with a parking lot!)

I also think that the Center of the Universe building is excellent and frankly would not have had a problem with a few historic homes coming down for its construction. Likewise, the abomination that was once Jacobsons in EGR coming down for the new project didn't make me lose any sleep and neither did the old Hall of Justice downtown. I would have helped with that one.

I, however; have a big problem with the historic schools being demolished and replaced with cartoon architecture, that frankly does not meet the historic typology of a school, but rather a factory.

And I do not think there are unlimited funds and, in fact, believe that in an energy starved future, the prospects of continueing to build in the experimental fashion in which we build today will certainly diminish.

As far as people getting sick in old buildings, it is far more likely to become ill from post WWII construction, particularly all the junk that was built in the 40's, 50's and 60's when the experiment was in full swing and unchecked. The lead based paint fiasco is just an example and one of those things that alarmist like to use in order to continue the wholesale demolition of our cities. I (and I would bet, most on this list) grew up in homes with lead paint (anything pre 1978). It had no effect on me and has had no effect (knock on wood)on my kids, who live in a 100 year old house.

Good urbanism has always been dynamic. Urbanism has always replaced the old with the new, because it can only be good if it is alive.

Some buildings in the early 1900's stood for less than 20 years, until they were replaced with better buildings. Grand houses were torn down and storefronts replaced them as economics, demographics and technology changed. The very dynamic nature of growth over time has defined our best urban places. No one took exception to this continued renewal because what was replacing the demolished stuff was better and it improved the lives of the citizens and the whole of the public realm. This all changed when we started to replace good things (ie- the old city hall) with crap. We are in an age, unfortunately, where we need to make it static, because the cancer of suburbanism and bad design continues to infiltrate and destroy urbanism.

[sfloria]

This all changed when we started to replace good things (ie- the old city hall) with crap.

Wow, I'm glad I found something that made sense in your posts.

The loss of the existing Henry building can not be justified by the new building. It was not an even trade.

I find this comment offensive. I challenge you to find one student or teacher that has studied or taught in Henry or any of the other GRPS schools being demolished, if they would prefer their old building to the new building that is built in its place. These schools are limited in classroom space, adequate air conditioning, suitable facilities for any student that is handicapped, and are often the worst learning environments in the region.

Not only will these kids have a better environment to learn, but now they have just as good facilities as the rich kids that get bussed to their school of choice out in the middle of a corn field. These buildings are built under sustainable and green practices. As far as Henry is concerned, I think the kids will prefer their new playground, outdoor ampitheater, and roof garden compaired to their current slab of pavement.

In a perfect world we would be able to keep every jewel of architecture that was created, like the old City Hall. We'd also be able to hop on our unicorn and make our way over to the river of chocolate.

[Mark Miller]

Wow, I'm glad I found something that made sense in your posts.

I find this comment offensive. I challenge you to find one student or teacher that has studied or taught in Henry or any of the other GRPS schools being demolished, if they would prefer their old building to the new building that is built in its place. These schools are limited in classroom space, adequate air conditioning, suitable facilities for any student that is handicapped, and are often the worst learning environments in the region.

Not only will these kids have a better environment to learn, but now they have just as good facilities as the rich kids that get bussed to their school of choice out in the middle of a corn field. These buildings are built under sustainable and green practices. As far as Henry is concerned, I think the kids will prefer their new playground, outdoor ampitheater, and roof garden compaired to their current slab of pavement.

In a perfect world we would be able to keep every jewel of architecture that was created, like the old City Hall. We'd also be able to hop on our unicorn and make our way over to the river of chocolate.

Adequate air conditioning? Maybe we could open some windows during the brief time that it is warm during school, oh wait, the new buildings probably don't have windows that open. It seems every single new building that gets built is hermetically sealed. Even if you desired to open windows you could not. This situation has effectively detached building occupants from their outside world and allowed us to continue the experiment that this type of architecture represents. How many people I this list had air conditioned schools? I didn't, and I learned just fine, even ended up with a Masters Degree. Not sure how I ever managed that without air conditioning.

Classroom size? Didn't the old schools function just fine with these classrooms for at least 50 years, all the while turning out kids who were better prepared to function in society? And didn't we have more kids attending school in GRPS during its heydey? We are losing 800 just this year.

I do not disagree with you on trying to make the facilities comparable to those of the "rich kids in the cornfields", and in an earlier post I tried to convey that. I do think the interiors are great. It is the exterior of the school which is troubling, especially from a typological standpoint. In reference to the typology, I can not tell what it is, is it a school or is it a plastic injection facility? Is it in context of Kentwood, Forest Hills or the Henry street neighborhood?

But all these crutches of classroom size and air conditioning are really no different than the excuses of urban renewal 40 years ago. Clearing away the old, while sanitizing and sterilizing for a better future. Trying to make order out of the inherent chaos and grit of good urbanism.

And then as a gesture, we add a sweeping curve on the building or skew it ever so slightly, because after all it is so mundane in its factory form. But isn't that ok since it is just a factory to credential?

[numstead]

Adequate air conditioning? Maybe we could open some windows during the brief time that it is warm during school, oh wait, the new buildings probably don't have windows that open. It seems every single new building that gets built is hermetically sealed. Even if you desired to open windows you could not. This situation has effectively detached building occupants from their outside world and allowed us to continue the experiment that this type of architecture represents. How many people I this list had air conditioned schools? I didn't, and I learned just fine, even ended up with a Masters Degree. Not sure how I ever managed that without air conditioning.

Funny you should mention operable windows because I found it odd that they actually had double-hung windows on the new Henry school. I think they're vinyl. Look carefully...

[andrew.w]

Funny you should mention operable windows because I found it odd that they actually had double-hung windows on the new Henry school. I think they're vinyl. Look carefully...

...with a closer look in this picture.

They do appear to be double/single-hung but I don't know about vinyl. I think they look to be silver as if framed in aluminum. At least I hope they aren't vinyl as that would be pretty cheap.

[tamias6]

...with a closer look in this picture.

They do appear to be double/single-hung but I don't know about vinyl. I think they look to be silver as if framed in aluminum. At least I hope they aren't vinyl as that would be pretty cheap.

Judging by the above image, it looks like at least the cornice and decrative columns above and around the doors have been recycled from the previous building. Correct? If so, good example of recycling in action.

[localtalent]

It is the exterior of the school which is troubling, especially from a typological standpoint. In reference to the typology, I can not tell what it is, is it a school or is it a plastic injection facility? Is it in context of Kentwood, Forest Hills or the Henry street neighborhood?

But all these crutches of classroom size and air conditioning are really no different than the excuses of urban renewal 40 years ago. Clearing away the old, while sanitizing and sterilizing for a better future. Trying to make order out of the inherent chaos and grit of good urbanism.

And then as a gesture, we add a sweeping curve on the building or skew it ever so slightly, because after all it is so mundane in its factory form. But isn't that ok since it is just a factory to credential?

I think I figured out why I find your posts so disturbing.

It seems your central point of reference for everything is form rather than function.

These are schools; their primary purpose is to provide an environment conducive to educating our young. The point of the building is not to "integrate the neighborhood" or "reinforce the typology" of a school building. The point is to educate.

To that end, some of the older spaces needes to be rebuilt. There's an overwhelming amount of research supporting the changes in learning environments with these new schools. You seem content to simply say "It was good enough for me, why change". I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it for my kids. And it shouldn't be good enough for the kids at Henry.

Now, as for the architecture itself...I think it's actually quite impressive. You have a community making a statement about it's schools through the architecture I see here. That statement is "these are important spaces". You may not like the new buildings, but they are notable and intelligent.

[GRDadof3]

I find GRTP's posts refreshing and thought-provoking, and I'm glad you've joined the discussion here GR Town Planner! I don't always agree, but I think that the main point is that in addition to function, when building in an urban environment, form must also have a place. What good is a school with an interior designed for the "lastest whizbang learning techniques (obsolete in 5 years BTW)" when the entire neighborhood around it empties out because the school does not blend well with the neighborhood. Not saying that it's the case here, because I haven't actually walked around the schools under construction.

Has anyone else on this board actually walked around them?

In addition, as far as vinyl windows go, aren't they rated to last a lot longer than wood framed or aluminum framed windows? (PVC takes thousands of years to decompose in a landfill) And especially for a school on a limited budget, shouldn't they be adding windows that need virtually no maintenance?

[localtalent]

I find GRTP's posts refreshing and thought-provoking, and I'm glad you've joined the discussion here GR Town Planner! I don't always agree, but I think that the main point is that in addition to function, when building in an urban environment, form must also have a place. What good is a school with an interior designed for the "lastest whizbang learning techniques (obsolete in 5 years BTW)" when the entire neighborhood around it empties out because the school does not blend well with the neighborhood. Not saying that it's the case here, because I haven't actually walked around the schools under construction.

Has anyone else on this board actually walked around them?

In addition, as far as vinyl windows go, aren't they rated to last a lot longer than wood framed or aluminum framed windows? (PVC takes thousands of years to decompose in a landfill) And especially for a school on a limited budget, shouldn't they be adding windows that need virtually no maintenance?

See, this is where things go nuts.

When was the last time a neighborhood emptied out because a school didn't blend well with the neighborhood? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single example.

The neighborhoods change when the schools stop functioning effectively (ie teaching kids). They don't empty. And it has nothing to do with how the school looks.

Honestly, we might all love it if the schools looks old, blends with the neighborhood, and reinforces GRTP's Typology stereotypes. But is that really the point?

[GRDadof3]

See, this is where things go nuts.

When was the last time a neighborhood emptied out because a school didn't blend well with the neighborhood? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single example.

The neighborhoods change when the schools stop functioning effectively (ie teaching kids). They don't empty. And it has nothing to do with how the school looks.

Honestly, we might all love it if the schools looks old, blends with the neighborhood, and reinforces GRTP's Typology stereotypes. But is that really the point?

There are countless examples of areas that have become economically depressed and crime-ridden because of poor architecture and poor neighborhood layout. A building that looks good now just because all the materials are right out of the factory, may not look good in relation to the neighborhood once the materials start to fade. Look at the addition to Central High School on Fountain. It may have looked cool when first built, but it looks so out of place now.

Believe me, I think it's fantastic that GRPS is updating and renovating their facilities. The better lighting, air handling, classroom layouts, ease of use, size of the lockers, modern plumbing, and much more all give students a boost in spirit and can greatly increase their attitudes, which in turn hopefully will stimulate learning.

[Rizzo]

I know that when I went to school we didn't have AC and our radiator heating didn't work worth a shi.... So in th summer the windows were open with thoes floor fans doing their job. My calssmates, and myself included would have given our lunches and break times just to have AC in class.

Today I think most kids just expect to have climate control, non operable windows, etc....