From: David Miles [davidfmiles@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:22 PM
To: scott@rodwinarch.com
Cc: Susan Cousins; mbennett@bwgarchitects.com;
apharamond@bwgarchitects.com; Tom Blahak; Don Orr; aweber@bwgarchitects.com
Subject: RE: Columbine Elementary
Hello everyone. I'd like to
first thank Scott for his response to my email. I'd also like to thank
the rest of the group for the collaborative effort Scott referred to in his
email prior to his response. I think that Scott's email has reassured me
that the goals, obstacles, and eventually, the decisions on this project are
being given a tremendous level of consideration. This must be a
collaborative effort built on thoughtful considerations and compromise.
I have had more time to think about
this subject and visit with some of my neighbors since my last email. I
have held back from discussing with my neighbors what I have heard of about the
opinions of some of the other neighbors and their methods for expressing those
opinions. My focus with my neighbors has been on identifying the problems
of the residents, parents, teachers,and visitors of the Floral, 20th, and
Repplier St. neighborhood in the hope that the D.A.T. can find reasonable
solutions.
While congestion remains very high
on the list of problems, the overall volume of traffic, including parking, and
safety are equally important. Seemingly, none of the proposed plans seems
to address these issues as well or maybe as creatively as it would seem
possible.
Floral, 20th, and Repplier St. are
narrow streets in a flood plain. Homes are on both sides of the street
and most homes have only a one car garage or driveway, meaning that a
multi-person home relies on street parking. Repplier and 20th St. also
add a dramatic bend in the road increasing concerns, namely safety. From
what I have seen of the potential designs the school's entrance will likely
remain on Repplier. That means that all of the aforementioned streets
will also add pedestrian and bicycle traffic going to the natural school entrance
before considering any additional motor vehicle traffic to the school. It
would seem necessary to consider the constants (resident traffic and pedestrian
and bike safety) of the neighborhood and school before discussing the
variables. The variables are (not to be all-inclusive):
1. Teachers
2. Administration and other
staff
3. Parent drop-off
4. Buses (including
pre-school)
5. Visitor parking
6. Rubbish and recycling
collection
7. Food and beverage delivery
8. Landscaping and maintenance
9. Event parking
10. Weekend, holiday, and
summer parking
Currently, all but two (the buses
and weekend, etc. traffic) of the aforementioned variables of Columbine traffic
is serviced through Floral, Repplier, and 20th St. As a note, in my
opinion the school lot as I have seen the designs is likely to encourage more
of the weekend, etc. traffic as the lot becomes more accessible to the city
field. That is all a tremendous load for any street, let alone the street
system with obstacles such as the one servicing the current school.
Taking into account all of the logistical and safety concerns with accessing
the school from Repplier it seems almost inconceivable that we (the D.A.T.)
would recommend that the neighbors, affiliates of the school, and community
members live with the same issues (volume of traffic and safety), albeit with
perhaps a little less congestion, after a $12 M renovation.
I understand that the layout of the
land for Columbine Elem. offers some challenges that other schools do not face
such as the fact that it is not a corner lot. That said, it seems to be
the consensus from this end of the neighborhood that the D.A.T. has not
appropriately explored the other options (22nd and Forest) as a means for a
service, visitor, or teacher entrance and parking. We understand that the
buses likely need to remain on 22nd St. and I think we would all agree that
seems logical. However, that should not preclude that area from having a
two lane entrance to parking for some other use. In the spirit of
compromise and preserving what seems to be the most important factor to the
east side neighborhood, the view, I strongly encourage the architects and
others responsible for the design of this school to consider alleviating a
tremendous burden, traffic volume and congestion, which lead to safety
concerns, on the west side of the neighborhood by relocating some of the school
vehicle entrances.
In closing, I also want to reiterate
that as a member of the D.A.T. and a community member I think it is important
that the community, through the D.A.T., remain privy to all of the ideas that
are being raised from various public interest groups. The fact that the
city and the BVSD are being as inclusive as they are in the design process is
remarkable and I know mot agree. Equally as important, however, is that
that feeling is not jeopardized by the idea that there is input, with or
without influence, that is not shared publicly. With all that is going on
with this school we simply cannot have the impression that the interest group
that speaks the loudest or roughest sees the most gain. I am not implying
that will happen but as many of you already know or are seeing through the
Columbine experience perception is very powerful and, at times, more important
than actual decision. I think this process as an open forum format should
remain that way by sharing all of the suggestions from the public, regardless
of how they are presented, to the D.A.T. and thus the community as a whole.
But I will leave that to you to decide.
Thanks again for listening, sharing,
and having me as a member on the Team. I look forward to the build and
hopefully some dramatic changes for Floral, Repplier and 20th St.
dm
P.s.
Sorry I went on.
Subject:
RE: Columbine Elementary
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:25:46 -0600
From: Scott@rodwinarch.com
To: davidfmiles@hotmail.com
CC: susan.cousins@bvsd.org; MBennett@bwgarchitects.com; Apharamond@bwgarchitects.com; tom.blahak@bvsd.org; don.orr@bvsd.org; AWeber@bwgarchitects.com
Thanks for your wonderful letter. I greatly appreciate the
thoughtfulness and concern that went into it. No worries about
contacting me directly this time. I have shared your letter with the
Design Team and the BVSD Project Manager and we have discussed your
questions.
On every project there are always a number of competing concerns:
the preferences of individual stakeholders, neighbors, owners, students and
staff; there are site issues like the floodplain, open
space, traffic, and the preservation of trees and views; there are the
very substantial issues such as the budget, building code, schedule,
public safety, sustainability, and in this particular case, above all the
primary goal, to create the best school possible for Columbine students.
That said, we do take every neighbor's comments seriously and try
our best to find a solution that optimally satisfies the greatest number of the
issues above, including stakeholder preferences and individual concerns.
However, we do not let one or even a few voices over-ride the other concerns
and perspectives involved. Yes, there have been a few strong objections
to the plan (raised at the first DAT and
presented by letter to the Board of Ed.), and we have taken those objections (specifically traffic and
views) into account, but good architecture is actually borne of the
constraints we are given; the concepts we presented last night appear to the design
team to be headed in a positive direction and did not unduly respond to
any one stakeholder's issue. They meet the overall list of criteria very
well, and hopefully they can also allay some individual neighbors'
concerns.
Lastly, we do fully agree with your overall sentiment that our
primary goal is simply to create the best possible design. In that
pursuit, our job is to find balance among and inspiration from
all the competing interests. We came away from last night's meeting feeling very
encouraged because the DAT representatives (notably those living on Repplier)
offered their feedback not from narrow self-interest, but in the overall
interest of the project, the larger neighborhood and the students.
It was a good night.
I hope that answered your questions. Please feel free to contact
me further if you want to chat more.
No worries about the
confusion regarding firm names. Architecture firms often partner with
each other to bring together the strengths of each firm for the benefit of a
client. We aren't trying to maintain visibly separate identities on your
project as we are working as a single team to get the job done.
Thanks,
Scott Rodwin, AIA, LEED AP
PS - You may find some
useful additional information regarding how the Project
Management Team responds to stakeholder concerns in the DAT guidelines. http://bvsd.org/bondproject/schools/Documents/DAT%20Guidelines%20Approved%201%2009.pdf
· Multiple
points of view are important to the work of the team and the architect. Members
are asked to bring to the discussion their perspectives as representatives of
various stakeholder interests. In addition, members are also asked to set aside
personal agendas and participate in a collaborative way with the group.
· All input
provided by DAT members will be given respectful consideration by the
architect.
· [The DAT] Serves as an informational
liaison within the school and the community by sharing information and
communicating progress. The DAT will also bring the perspectives of their
stakeholder groups to the design team, mindful of the need to advocate for the
best interest of the school as a whole.
RODWIN ARCHITECTURE
1245 Pearl Street, Suite 202
Boulder, CO 80302
p 303 413 8556
f 303 413 8557
www.rodwinarch.com
From: David Miles
[mailto:davidfmiles@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 8:58 PM
To: Scott Rodwin
Subject: Columbine Elementary
Scott,
This
is Dave Miles from the Columbine DAT. I couldn't find the emails for any
of the crew at Bennet, Wagner, and Grody so I thought I would write you
directly and you can share it with them if you'd like. Truthfully, I
thought you all were one firm so I am a little embarrassed and confused
but I am assuming contacting you here is fine.
The
reason that I am writing is that tonight some of the other participants
commented to me on how well the Repplier St. people are handling this process.
They went on to say that others were not. It got us talking and as
I understand it there was some sort of letter written by some of the east side
residents concerning the site layout. That got me thinking how in each of
the proposals you guys pointed the view as being preserved. There are
only about 8 houses that even have that view. I am wondering if this
letter is something that needs to be discussed in an open forum i.e. the DAT?
More to the point, I am wondering if such a letter was written was it was
simply taken under advisement (politely dismissed) or if it is being taken
seriously as a constraint to building?
I
have the feeling from our meetings that the members of the DAT team trust and
respect the architecture team and the BVSD. I know that I do. That
said, it would seem to me that if people in our community are using threats or
strongly worded letters to achieve their personal
objectives rather than discussing them openly at the appropriate forum it
should be known to the DAT. Especially if one of those neighbors serves
on the DAT. At the very least I think it is appropriate that the DAT be
reassured that the design is being done with only the natural and city building
constraints in mind along with, of course, the feedback of the DAT.
It
would put my mind at ease to know that the site plan has nothing to do with a
group of people who are worried only about their investment and that the plans
are truly the BEST plans possible for the site. I was dismayed to hear
about how some of my own neighbors have handled this process and again it is my
hope is that it is not weighing in on what we are all assuming is the best and
most professional advice we are receiving for the design of our new school.
Thanks
dm
Rediscover HotmailŪ: Get quick
friend updates right in your inbox. Check it out.