Page 1 of 1. Click for larger.

This article’s significance is underscored now, several years later, with the published study.

Article copyright ©2005 The Macon Telegraph; used with permission. Thank you!

–

Page 1 of 1. Click for larger.

This article’s significance is underscored now, several years later, with the published study.

Article copyright ©2005 The Macon Telegraph; used with permission. Thank you!

–

Page 1 of 1. Click for larger.

Article copyright ©2005 The Macon Telegraph; used with permission. Thank you!

–

Page 1 of 1. Click for larger.

Article copyright ©2005 The Macon Telegraph; used with permission. Thank you!

–

Headline: Two Midstate Sites on ‘Places in Peril’ List

Page 1 - click for larger. (Most browsers also support a second click, which will fit to your screen.)

Page 2 (of 2). Click for larger.

Copyright ©2007 Macon Telegraph; used with permission. Thank you!

–

Click for larger; page 1 of 1.

Copyright ©2007 Macon Telegraph; used with permission. Thank you!

–

New Schools + Big-Box Mentality = Sprawl

It’s a formula for disaster

Kim A. O’Connell
The Blue Ridge Press

When Lyn Michell’s son Warren was small, the family had the good fortune to live across the street from the boy’s Atlanta elementary school. Now that Warren is in middle school, Lyn has joined legions of parents nationwide who drive their children through crowded suburbs just to get to and from school. When Warren enters high school, the commute will be even longer, the monthly gasoline bills bigger, and the route even more congested.

Unfortunately, this trend is escalating as new suburban mega-schools are built far from community centers, fueling sprawl, pollution and traffic. Meanwhile, America’s old historic schools, in or near town centers, are being abandoned and demolished at an alarming pace — a wasteful trend driven by misguided federal and state policies and funding.

In the 1990s, school construction expenditures in the United States rose by 40 percent, with less than 20 percent of that spending used to renovate existing schools, according to a 2005 National Association of Realtors study. Nationally, approximately $253 billion was spent on public school construction and renovation between 1995 and 2004 — the lion’s share going for new school construction, says the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, for example, built 78 new schools in its outer suburbs between 1970 and 1990, while closing 162 schools within city limits, says the Sierra Club. In Ohio, 790 of 1,300 schools evaluated in 2004 were to be abandoned in favor of new facilities, reports Governing magazine. City officials in Stroudsburg, Pa., and Fayetteville, Ark., are now wrangling over proposals to abandon their in-town high schools and build new ones farther away. And the New Orleans Recovery School District is planning to demolish 47 schools damaged by Hurricane Katrina, even though preservationists believe some of the old buildings can be saved.

The sprawling new schools that replace historic buildings harm both the environment and our quality of life. These mega-schools — Wal-Mart-sized complexes located far from town centers and accessible only by major highways — waste energy and resources, encourage new development in previously unbuilt-up areas and increase traffic. In the late 1990s, one study found that large new schools in Charleston, S.C., were being built with an average of 10 acres of parking — enough asphalt to cover nearly eight football fields.

Another disturbing outcome of our car-dominated culture is that kids such as Warren no longer walk to school. This erodes not only their quality of life, but that of parents, too. Suburban parents often spend an inordinate amount of time chauffeuring kids to and from school. Most agree this commuting time would be better spent playing catch outdoors or chatting at the dinner table.

When it comes to funding school projects, federal and state agencies are working at crosspurposes: They say they want to curb sprawl, but they promote policies that guarantee it by encouraging new construction over renovation. Federal funding is biased toward the construction of new “healthy, high-performance” schools that meet current energy-efficiency, health and safety standards, leaving many noncompliant old buildings with little hope for help.

Some policies require schools to be sited on a minimum number of acres, or don’t allow renovation of an existing school if it will cost more than a certain percentage — often two-thirds — of a comparable new one. Such rules often omit the hidden costs of new construction, such as land acquisition and infrastructure improvements. Also, school districts are usually barred from federal and state tax incentives for rehabilitating existing buildings.

“Most school systems are building in new-growth areas,” says Thomas E. Low, director of town planning with the New Urbanist architecture firm Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. “They’re remote and overcrowded, and kids can’t walk to them. The mentality is about quantity versus quality.”

It will take visionary leadership to curb the sprawling mega-school trend. The National Trust and other groups are encouraging innovative policies that provide flexible acreage standards for new schools, that foster efforts to co-locate public facilities such as schools, libraries and sports clubs in existing buildings, and that allow waivers to level the playing field when existing and new schools compete for funding.

In Ohio, for example, a school district that can prove that an existing school has historic significance or plays a special community role, can request a waiver to obtain the same amount of money for rehabilitation that would have been spent for the construction of a new school.

The state of Florida now requires a feasibility study to find a viable alternative to demolition of a historic school. Other locales have passed similar measures, including Montgomery County, Md.; Boise, Idaho; and San Antonio, Texas.

Despite these successes, we need to make a strong case to government that we care passionately about the quality of our lives, education and our environment — enough to want to reinvest in existing and historic schools. What better lesson could we teach our children?

This article is copyright its respective owners.

We did a quick sketch to help visualize a ‘mixed use’ alternative for the school; with retail/restaurants on lower level & residential or office on upper floors [...]. We had some fun with it.”

Note: This drawing is a proposed sketch and has not been approved. The idea is to generate and consider alternative approaches to Miller’s use, including this idea.

Click the above to see a larger version. (Warning: large file.)

Your feedback on this possible alternative use for Miller is welcome and appreciated. If you have ANOTHER idea for Miller, let us know! Leave a comment.

The image above is used with permission from Lee Berg, AIA. This file may not be used by a third party without permission.

FEASIBILITY STUDY
FORMER MILLER HIGH SCHOOL
BTBB #23-007

10 September 2003

Introduction

The former Miller High School is a very prominent building located on Mercer University Drive between Pio Nono Avenue and Mercer University. Not only is the location a major connection leading to Mercer and to downtown Macon, it is also a prime location for an educational facility within walking distance of the Beall’s Hill neighborhood, which is currently undergoing a significant urban renewal program, and to a number of other historic neighborhoods that have been or are now undergoing a resurgence.

The imposing 3 story structure occupies a small portion of a substantial parcel of land, particularly given its proximity to the urban city core. There are several other more recent school buildings on the site, none of which are of historical significance, with the possible exception of a small free-standing gymnasium building. That building has exterior detailing that is very similar to the high school building. The gym may have been built near the time of the original building or sometime shortly thereafter. That building is not included in the scope of this Study.

The main building was formerly utilized as a high school but has been used only for storage and other very limited uses in the last several years. Currently, the Board of Education’s Print Shop occupies the lower level.

Central High School sits just several short blocks from this site. The Board of Education’s Facilities Plan includes the demolition of the existing Central facility and construction of a new Central High School on the same site. The Central site also accommodates athletic fields.

While the Board of Education has no definitive plans for this building or this site, there have been several potential uses suggested over the last several years. One of those suggestions was that of using this building and site for a new high school. That consideration, coupled with an interest in the architectural significance of the building, has laid the groundwork that formed the basis for this Feasibility Study. Should this concept ultimately be deemed feasible, the existing Central site would have to be utilized for athletic fields and/or other ancillary facilities.

While, in theory, the concept is sound, there are a number of issues that need to be considered to determine the feasibility of such a project. Therefore, this Study was defined in a number of phases. None of the phases, taken alone, will determine that this project is feasible. On the other hand, several of the phases alone could conceivably determine that the project is not feasible.

Initially, only Phase I of this study has been funded to-date. The scope of this phase addresses the evaluation of the existing building and building systems only. The scope of this phase does not address the feasibility of maintaining / restoring the historical portions of the building(s), the feasibility of utilizing the building to meet the programmatic space requirements, or the feasibility of accommodating enough new building construction on this site (with necessary space for parking, etc.) in order to meet the necessary space requirements for a new high school facility.

In a building of this age, there is absolutely no question that the plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems are outdated or inadequate by current standards. The significant issues in this phase relate to environmental and structural issues. Unless there are glaring structural deficiencies or monumental environmental problems, this phase of the study will not solely determine the outcome of the Feasibility Study.

Structural damage can generally be stabilized and made sound, and asbestos / lead can be encapsulated or abated – the question, of course, is…..at what cost? The answer to that question is not a part of this phase of the study. Therefore, the feasibility of the project will not be determined by this phase of the Study alone.

Return to the Miller Feasibility Study, Phase I index page.

Introduction, Phase I

Premise for Phase I

Feasibility Issues (by Phases)

Conclusion, Phase I

Floor Plans (PDF, 2.8MB download)

Environmental and Building Code Analysis (PDF, 3.2MB download)

Structural and Roof Report (PDF, 1.8MB download)

We appreciate Brittain Thompson Bray Brown allowing the posting of these materials.