So What happened to Mr. Craig Williams, he has mysteriously disappeard. rummer has it he was let go..
Maybe someone wants to look into that

To Why NOt World Class?

The new Benet addition (to improve science classrooms) have red brick mixed in with the cinder block painted white. A nice look.

Thom,

Ok since you agree that the inside is more important than the outside then it makes sense to strip off all the pretentious aluminum that is going to look like crap in 20 years or so anyway. Save the money on these wasteful accouterments that are nothing more than slight of hand decorations intended to make an ugly building less ugly and will never make it beautiful. If we are resigned to the fact that Naperville Central is and always will be an ugly high school, well so be it. Let's move on to spend the money inside where it matters more and will do more good.

If people are turned off by the exterior, the interior will be worst. Jails, hospitls, schools? They are all built the same. Except schools do not have bars.

There is only so much you can do with cinder block!!

LOOKING SILLY

Thom, that is a really silly comment. There were two additions to Avery Coonley in the 15 years my children attended that school. The education was just as good in the early years as it was in the later years with the smart and very cost effective additions to a 75 year old building.

But you know what? The people who worked on the facilities planning for both of those two additions did 20 times the work compared to what I have seen at Central. The "Gap Analysis" (what the buildings were missing) were exhaustive and the resulting "plans" naturally flowed.

Never thought of any of this until you brought up the "silly" comment and I reflected walking through the buildings at Avery Coonley as they evolved. In fact, I personnaly would offer to take you on a tour of that building and show you the changes AND retention of the Prairie architecture (the school was designed by a student of Wright). That was a "top class" project. In fact, I would extend that offer to Benet as well. I am impressed on the hard work of Father Jude to improve a school with the same issues as Central (and more since the core buildings were originally an orphanage!!).

Also, I would totally support a design competition. It creates a competitive process. And the money for the designs are not an issue. HUH? The current architectural fees are about $5 million. In a competition, you pay the architect $50,000 (I was going to say $25,000, but that is too low). You also solicit proposals and limit the participants to 5 to 7.

Spending $250,000 to get the best $5 million makes total sense. In fact, I think of the $350,000 the District spent for the evaluation, at least $150,000 of it went to Resenbaum (sp?) to draw pictures. For $100,000 more, we could have had Ted (that was his first name) and four others compete for the fee. And we would have five designs rather than one. Saying this, hindsight is 20/20. But I think you might even agree that this was an opportunity lost (and I would have nothing to complain about!!!).

I also do not know if in today's environment you would get teams that would bid total projects. The major construction companies (I am going to leave names out) are not longer construction companies, but rather are paper pushers. In a pure design competition, architects team up with builders to present a finished product and a fixed construction price. Since construction companies avoid risk, the fixed price probably would be $140 million instead of $87 million. (By the way, I have first hand experience that I would not want to make public on these pages. If you were truly level, I would share in a private setting.)

Maybe an alternative would be to have architects propose buildings with their estimate of cost and a penalty mechanism if the actual costs were to exceed their estimates by more than 5 to 10 percent (take the excess out of their fee). The design competition would be to select the architect and final design. The District would need a very competant firm (construction management or another architectural firm) to objectively evaluate. I also remember that there was some recent state law that changed how architects are hired and this could prevent this option. (Funny how the owner of Wight, the District's architects, is so present in the Levine, Rezko, Blago cases, wonder if there is a coincidence on this state law).

The Naperville City hall was well received. The same for the Harold Washington library downtown and the Tribune Tower. And I did propose this during the election with most of the caveats noted above. And I even outlined it to Leis since he had never heard of the concept.

Why not world class

You are correct that there was a design competition for city hall. However, the 5 finalists were paid for their submissions. I can't see the SD doing that (can you imagine what Dan Denys comments would be if the SD actually paid 5 firms for submissions?) and as I've said before the state rules regarding the retaining of architects is pretty funky. I'm hardly sure they could even host a competition if they wanted to.

Secondly, the outside is really irrelevant. It's the inside that counts.

Regarding Dan Denys comment here:

They commit a reasonable sum of money (at least $350,000) and then get garbage. 23 binders of "boilerplate templates" (per another poster). Quantity, not quality

You can try and try, to cast doubt on the process, but it didn't work when you attempted to derail the referendum, and you will look pretty silly when the students and teachers walk through the Center in a few years.

Drop the World Class logo?

Can you imagine the arrogance and ego of the person who even had the gall to propose it?

And what does that say about the arrogance and ego of those who went along with this terribly bad idea?

Now if there was actually a defined criteria that had to be met to claim such status or is such status was independently "awarded" by some type of independent, third-party, rating type organization or agency then and only then might it even come close to being OK.

As it is, it does nothing but smack of self-centered, braggadocio that holds little merit considering where our schools have actually been able to place on state and national rankings. World Class, well first we need to see our students actually be objectively compared to other countries.

Would it be nice? Absolutely. Until it is done it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Anonymous,

It seems you have two issues. One, that you personally think that there should have been a design competition, but as you haven't offered any examples of this being done with other school renovations, and I'm actually unsure the SD could have staged one if they had wanted to due to the arcane restrictions regarding SD's hiring of architectural firms, it seems to be a difficult argument to make.

To turn your question back to you, perhaps I should ask: is it your best argument that D203 should have staged a design competition, absent it being done elsewhere, simply because you think they should have? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if nobody else does it(and I've never heard of it except in very high profile large projects), I have a hard time understanding your logic.

Secondly, you're spending a lot of time criticizing the exterior of the building when let's face it, it's what's inside that counts. And while we all have opinions on aesthetics, do you think you, and, or, the community at large are qualified to comment on how the interior of the buildings should function? I've got an above average knowledge in architecture, and I consider myself wholly unqualified to comment on how a modern school should be laid out, and to me that's what's of supreme importance, not what the facade looks like.

I'll add that aesthetics is a very personal, subjective, and evolving concept. There are a lot of buildings some people hated initially such as the Inland Steel building and the early Mies van der Rohe structures, and now they are considered classics, and of course the opposite is true too. Look at all the Louis Sullivan buildings torn down in the 60's in Chicago because they were "dated". They are now considered lost masterpieces.

You've made comments about community unhappiness regarding the exterior (parents, students,facility, school board) and I've asked you to share them here with us. Will you please do that? The comments here look to be split, and with so many anonymous posters it's hard to know if they are different or some are the same person.

And hey, I'm still wondering about this other Thom Higgins "government employee" that you found. Who is he?

DOES THE DISTRICT REALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT "THOMy Boy HIGGINS" HAVE TO SAY?

I know, I don't. And I am not being offensive. Thom attempts to do what the District should be doing. They set out with a very fine process of creating a gap analysis throughout the entire district. They commit a reasonable sum of money (at least $350,000) and then get garbage. 23 binders of "boilerplate templates" (per another poster). Quantity, not quality.

Imagine if the District made their consultant's do the work instead of paying them and then firing them. I would have nothing to write about. And I would be very happy if 203 would just do what they said they were going to do rather than cram mediocre and incomplete information down our throats.

They should drop the World Class logo, it simply does not fit!

Anonymous from 11/5/08 @ 8:49 AM is correct as usual. Don't get too big of an ego, you are only being compared to Higgins.

What government building was done using a design competition? Um.

THE NAPERVILLE CITY HALL!!!! Right in our back yard.

As I recall, at least three of the five proposals were outstanding.

But with modern CAD (Computer Aided Desigh or something like that), you can look at numerous alternatives once you input the base information. Do you think Donald Trump picked the first design he saw? Doubt it. Do you trust Leis to have the eye of the community after being lost in Virginia so long?

Thom,

Your best argument is that no one else does it so why should we? Your best defense is that we hand the design over to one architectural firm and then everyone in the community has to be satisfied with this one and only design concept?

Following that though process and logic are we to assume that Thom Higgins bought the first house he looked at? And you don't shop around for a new automobile and compare what the market offers?

At this point the discussion is about the design and YES there is a lack of consensus that the proposed design is something that is embraced by this community. Not all of the stakeholders agree with the proposal.

Concept drawings from more than one firm would have provided options for all of the stakeholders to choose from. One proposal is not an option. It is a take it or leave it situation.

If enough people are opposed to this design it leaves the school board with no option other than to fire the architectural firm and move on to other firms. This adds a new and unanticipated degree of difficulty and delay to the project.

That is why smart property and building owners get consensus on the design up-front. And that is why the cart is in front of the horse. Voters had no clue what the building would look like when they voted. There is always the possibility that a referendum might not pass if enough voters were troubled by what the building was going to look like. That is exercising democracy in its truest form. Right now the school board deliberately attempts to "manage" the outcome of the democratic process by the methods they utilize to go about things. This cuts off stakeholder input and assumes that all the stakeholders want is a renovated building and that they don't care what it will look like.

From my knowledge and experience in our community voters are very passionate about the looks of things. With the carillon they got a private project shoved down their throats and they hated the design. With a public project like a high school the voters should have the majority of the input on the design... it is our community asset and it reflects our perception and values as a community.

Regarding Dan Denys comments:

Dan I’m confused, you’ve never before admitted that a Gap analysis existed. Perhaps we are making some progress. Regardless, you need to give up on this whole straw man argument. The Healy Bender report, and the totality of the NCHS renovation is much more than just the issue of classroom size.

Regarding this:

Do we need to spend $87 million to demolish North and make bigger classrooms?

No. the existing NNHS classrooms are comparable to what will be built at Central. The following was posted by me previously:

The general education traditional lecture classrooms are mostly in a newly constructed wing and are 775 s.f. for the most part. The english classrooms will average 802 s.f.. I do not have a classroom by classroom breakdown, but my expectation is they also will be predominately 775 s.f. each, with some larger ones in the mix, too.
This conflicts with some higher numbers that have been discussed and this is where understanding the complexity of a modern school comes in. For example, the English lecture classrooms will average 802 s.f., but add in the 3 labs or centers, as the architect labels them, and you have a 912 s.f. average. Which number is correct? They both are. But, you need to know what the numbers represent to understand them.

The district has used the 900s.f. figure, based on including the larger spaces, in some of their communications as it is more illustrative of the increase in space over the existing classrooms.
So, how does this compare to Naperville North HS, for example? If you take all their classrooms and average them out, you get 875 s.f. If you take only the traditional, lecture style, gen ed classrooms, it is 720 s.f.
.

Bringing this up doesn’t help your case:

And you raise the classic, only one restroom in the flat wing becuase the other is used as storage!!!!

Yes, to store wheelchairs and such. The overwhelming majority of residents in Naperville have no idea that public school districts are required to educate severely handicapped to their 22rd. birthday. Here’s what I wrote previously,

“Appropriately designed, dedicated space is needed for the medically fragile special needs population that attends NCHS. Currently these students, up to age 22, are situated in two former business classrooms in the flat wing (causing the business classes to be shunted outside into the portables). This is not the kind of facilities that these children need. Central’s award winning adaptive PE students are in the hallway as the gyms are needed for every period of the day for other large PE classes.”

There is no room for their wheelchairs and other equipment, so the teachers gave up their bathroom to allow them to be stored there. Another example of why Central needed to be enlarged.

Anonymous,

OK I‘ll bite, what other Thom Higgins?

Other than that, I have to wonder if you were here in Naperville during the facilities discussion. 203 offered the community three different possibilities, a minor renovation, a major renovation and a new high school. The community decided on a major renovation and 203 accepted that decision. There was no backlash. The community was given three options, the community decided, and the SD accepted that decision.

To say that the community only had a general idea of what was proposed, after all the community outreach, the immense volume of information on the district website, the build the future website ,and even our website QE203.org, is hard to comprehend. The district bent over backwards and provided volumes of information. With the exception of fully designing the renovations before the community approved them (and let’s remember there was also volumes of information presented on the Mill Street and NNHS renovations along with the ECC), I can’t think of what additional information they could have provided.

What is the basis of this comment of yours?

The voters, the school board, and if the truth be known the faculty and students as well are split on the acceptability of this design.

Please give us details, who are you referencing and what did they say?

Lastly, you keep criticizing the district for not holding a design competition. Can you give us examples of this from other school districts? I’ve never heard of a school district in Illinois at least doing this?

ANOTHER SIMPLE QUESTION

Thom, if this was the standard, why wasn't it included in the Gap Analysis Report? Then it would be very simple to say that xx% of classrooms are of fine size, yy% are 10 % short, etc. For $300,000, why wouldn't a professional report be prepare.

FOOLED YOU, ANOTHER QUESTION

Using this standard, how do the classrooms at North rank? Last I heard, there were two schools in town. Do we need to spend $87 million to demolish North and make bigger classrooms?

OBSERVATION

This classroom size issue ONLY came up in a late presentation by Rosenbaum (sp?). It was never documented, never discussed by the Facilities committee.

I will tell you as a parent evaluating schools (yes, there are choices), classroom size was never an issue. My biggest issue was the TERRIBLE (yes totally awful) maintenance such as 80% of the light bulbs at the southwest entrance being burned out (Paulson had them replaced in two days after I mentioned it, I cannot believe that 3.500 people never commented before, let alone people responsible for maintenance and SAFETY), awful and angry red point, derrogative paintings of Indians, desks that were broken, and poor lighting. A college fraternity house was maintained at a higher level.

And you raise the classic, only one restroom in the flat wing becuase the other is used as storage!!!!

Thom,

Ok, you aren't a government employee. Ok, that must be the OTHER Thom Higgins.

Despite your self adopted role of chief defender of all things related to SD 203 that doesn't chance the facts and you can go ahead and disagree all you want. Go ahead and stomp your feet, throw a tantrum, and have a hissy fit if you want as well. Just because you disagree doesn't make it so. Not by a long shot.

The system is cart in front of the horse. The SD put out their propaganda on why a referendum was needed. There was strong community backlash and the original pipe dream collapsed. Voters let it be known that they wanted the original building renovated not replaced. At the time of voting on the referendum the voters only had a general idea of what would be accomplished, no concept drawings, and no design competition. Once the SD got the referendum passed and had the money in hand they single sourced the project to one architect again without design competition.

We taxpayers are now in a situation where a very bad snowball is rolling down hill and gaining speed.
The architect has only one solution that they have been able to develop and advance. The voters, the school board, and if the truth be known the faculty and students as well are split on the acceptability of this design.

The problem is that a design competion should have been done first and then the contract should have been awarded to the firm that had the best design. That didn't happen. Now we have one design that can be either reject or approved, or approved with some possible changes. One proposal is going to determine the look of NCHS for the next 50-60 years.

Yes, this is the cart in front of the horse. Sorry you don't understand the concept Thom and since you don't you shouldn't be weighing in on the issue.

Anonymous,

First I’m not a government employee, and don’t have any employment relationship with the SD, or vendors. Neither does my wife or family.

Secondly, anyone who looked at the schematics and narrative of the proposed renovations at NCHS, posted at the Build The Future website, would see clearly what the scope and intent of the work contemplated was. D203 went out it’s way to make sure the community understood the scope and nature of what they were being asked to approve, and further if you compare the schematics of the proposed plan prior to the referendum, and the current, more detailed plan they are quite similar.

Here’s the pre-referendum document

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007-2012.pdf

Here’s the post referendum plans;

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/FacilitiesUpdateNCHSExterior08_10-20.pdf

I’m sorry but I am going to have to disagree with you. I just don’t see how you can credibly claim that D203 put the cart before the horse. What we see here in the latest document is the Architect refining the plans.

Dan,

You can try to twist your straw man argument around and around forever, but as I have explained numerous times Healy Bender, and everyone else for that matter use the accepted 30 s.f. per student industry standard from the Council of Educational Facility Planners International guidebook. Their latest version is here:

Space Planning Guidelines for Institutions of Higher Education (2006)

While the state of Illinois does not mandate a minimum sf per student for instructional purposes, Minnesota does, here’s a link to their document showing that they too use 30sf per student.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/mn_dept_ed%20const%20plan%20guidelines%20pp112-143%20003979-3.pdf

I’m sorry if you can’t find it specifically outlined anywhere, but it is the accepted industry standard, and from the very beginning, when Ted Rosenbloom (sp?) started the conversation of renovating Central it was the standard used then and throughout the process. Including the Healy Bender study and now Wight. When I talked to other HS districts locally, they also confirmed it was the standard used.

Can you offer the example of any school that has been designed to another (smaller) standard? Can you explain to the readers here why D203 should ignore the industry standard and instead do something else?
.

This comment is flat wrong:

The reason that $87 million of tax dollars are being spent rather than $30 million…..

The scope of the renovation is immense, and to say we get from $30 million to $87 million because of the classrooms renovations is ludicrous.

.

Lastly this:

The old classrooms were 650 square feet. The new, 780 square feet. 20% larger. No complaints on size for over 50 years even when class sizes were larger. And again, Wight did not do the evaluation of the schools. I went to the web site of the organization Thomy cited, but there was no references to classroom size when I searched their web site.

On what basis can you say there have been no complaints? Students, Parents, and D203 staff have all complained about the small classrooms . If I remember correctly they have 26- 28 students in these classrooms currently.

As to your inability to find the reference to classroom size at their website as in inference that it doesn’t exist, this is a perfect example of your tactics. You conflate this sf question into the holy grail of holy grails. To an architect it’s a important detail yes, but one of a hundred important details that go into designing the modern HS. If you really, really need to see it in print for yourself, It’s in the guidebook $40.00 plus shipping and handling.

Well Thom,

Thank you for detailing and confirming that the SD 203 process for the central renovation was definitely putting the cart in front of the horse. Only in government would money be spent like this... have the voters sign the check before they even know the details of what they are buying.

And of course we have you, another government employee, thinking the process is just fine. So much for an objective view from you.

ANOTHER TREATISE

"THOMy Boy" Higgins is like the entergizer bunny. But he never answers the question.

Let's frame the simple question. What was the standard used by Healy Bender (not Wight) to conclude that classroom sizes at Naperville Central were too small?

Per Thomy, NEVER PUBLISHED. I think that is the end of the story.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT

The reason that $87 million of tax dollars are being spent rather than $30 million at Central is that every classroom in the three story wing are being destroyed and rebuilt. RATIONALE? The classrooms were determined to be too small. Where is the documentation? Can't be found.

NEW INFORMATION

The old classrooms were 650 square feet. The new, 780 square feet. 20% larger. No complaints on size for over 50 years even when class sizes were larger. And again, Wight did not do the evaluation of the schools. I went to the web site of the organization Thomy cited, but there was no references to classroom size when I searched their web site.

It would be nice to address the question raised instead of irrelevant ramblings.

Regarding Dan Denys latest comment here:

I think the architects should very specifically state at what standard these new buildings are being constructed--25 year, 50 year, 100 year. What is so hard about this?

Dan are you trying to change the subject? You have been going on and on complaining this:

please point us to the page that states what the appropriate classroom size should be and the reference source for that information. Second, point us to the page that evaluates classroom sizes throughout the entire district based on that standard.

Sure looks like you are trying to change the subject to me. Is being outed for your straw mam argument about classroom size getting a little too uncomfortable, so now you're going to try to pivot off your loosing argument to make a new charge and hope no on notices? Sigh....

.

For anyone who cares here is a part of a prior post regarding the classroom size issue, please note the sentences in bold:

.

Dan Denys has outspokenly labeled the renovation as being excessive and unnecessary. On 1-17-08, he equated the standard for the amount of space a student needs to safely exit a room (18 s.f.) to the standard for how much space a student should be provided for instructional purposes. He incorrectly claimed that the existing classrooms (at 650 s.f.) are 167% larger than they have to be and to enlarge them further would be an unnecessary luxury. A Taj Mahal in his and Mr. Davitt’s words.

Mr. Denys used an irrelevant standard as the basis of his argument thereby rendering that argument invalid.

So what classroom standard is Wight Architects using? They are using the accepted 30 s.f. per student standard (Council of Educational Facility Planners International) and basing the classroom size on 26 students per room, for a total of 780 sf. I need to correct an earlier comment about this issue: I thought they were building to a 30 student classroom population, not 26.

The general education traditional lecture classrooms are mostly in a newly constructed wing and are 775 s.f. for the most part. The english classrooms will average 802 s.f.. I do not have a classroom by classroom breakdown, but my expectation is they also will be predominately 775 s.f. each, with some larger ones in the mix, too.

This conflicts with some higher numbers that have been discussed and this is where understanding the complexity of a modern school comes in. For example, the English lecture classrooms will average 802 s.f., but add in the 3 labs or centers, as the architect labels them, and you have a 912 s.f. average. Which number is correct? They both are. But, you need to know what the numbers represent to understand them.

The district has used the 900s.f. figure, based on including the larger spaces, in some of their communications as it is more illustrative of the increase in space over the existing classrooms.

So, how does this compare to Naperville North HS, for example? If you take all their classrooms and average them out, you get 875 s.f. If you take only the traditional, lecture style, gen ed classrooms, it is 720 s.f.

Let’s look some general ed traditional lecture classrooms in newly constructed schools.

Metea (in planning), projected to be 840 s.f. (28 students per room standard?)
Neuqua 840 s.f. (28 student per classroom standard?)
Waubonsie 780 s.f. (26 students per classroom standard?)
Oswego East HS’s either 928 or 960 s.f. (30 Students per classroom standard?)
Plainfield North 751s.f. (25 students per classroom stated standard)
CUSD 300 Hampshire, IL 825 s.f.

.

Let's hope this ends the classroom size silliness. Unfortunately it looks like Dan's going to try the same tactic about the longevity of the building. Buckle up kids, here we go again!

COMMON SENSE/SIMPLE ANSWERS

I think the architects should very specifically state at what standard these new buildings are being constructed--25 year, 50 year, 100 year. What is so hard about this?

THOM "STAWMAN" HIGGINS

You are right, the 23 binders were the first part of the facilities study (that should have cost $50,000 to $100,000).

The second phase that would be a bargain at $200,000 was to identify standards and benchmark district buildings. Who knows why it was not done? It was part of the original project.

Poor process, poor outcome. The Strawman from Oz (the Scarecrow) could tell you that. And he had no brain.

Anonymous,

I hardly know where to start. Regarding this:

Notwithstanding your long-winded rant... what is to compel any taxpayer to believe that we are looking at the best possible solution... the best possible use of our tax dollars... ?

Long winded rant?

What I reproduced is a piece that I wrote for QE203.org’s website (I’m co-chair) and the Build the Future203 committee liked it enough to post it on their webpage during the referendum push. So I hardly think anyone would consider it a rant. What it is, is, a detailed description of the many factors that the renovation of Central is addressing.

As far as your comment about best possible solution and use of tax dollars, what evidence can you offer to the contrary?

Regarding these comments,

All we have seen is one proposal from one consultant. Anyone who knows anything about solving these kinds of problems is fully aware that if you give the same existing situation to a dozen different architects that they will come up with a dozen different solutions.

With only one proposal to look at we have no way to factually know if this is the best or the worst solution. Yet if things continue on the current path we are about to embark upon a process that no one is going to be able to stop or change for the next 5-6 decades.

We are way past the proposal phase. D203 spent 2 years getting to the point where they felt they were ready to go to referendum. They interviewed different architectural firms and selected Wight. Which I believe is that structure they are required to follow. As I have said previously Wight is very experienced in HS renovations. Here’s a link to an article the Wight architect wrote about other renovations they have done

http://www2.peterli.com/spm/resources/articles/archive.php?article_id=1169

D203 had Wight do a basic outline of what they proposed, (no sense having them design it completely and have the referendum fail), and once the referendum passed, they started the more detailed nitty gritty design work. If you look at the building the future link on website they have pretty detailed drawings. You can also read the minutes of the last meeting where wight did a update.

http://www.naperville203.org/departments/buildings/BuildingtheFuture.asp

Regarding Dan Denys continuing straw man argument about classroom size standards, first a definition:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. A straw-man argument is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. "One can set up a straw man in the following ways: 1) Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.....

So how does this apply to Mr. Denys? Here are the questions that form his straw man.

1. Please point us to the page (in the stacks of binders)that states what the appropriate classroom size should be and the reference source for that information.

2. Point us to the page that evaluates classroom sizes throughout the entire district based on that standard.

What Dan is doing here is demand why the report didn’t contain something that had no reason to be part of the report, and then condemning it for not containing it.

Dan went on and on about this in a previous blog thread before the referendum. Sigh…………..

And of course he likes to bring up his beloved Benet where he sent his kids. If I remember right Benet kids ACT scores are 3 pts higher than D203, but they are a restrictive, admissions based school, versus D203, who of course, takes all comers. I wonder how Benet would do if they had to take everyone who entered their door. And he also likes to compare the difference in cost between the renovations between Benet and NCHS. Of course, it’s apples and oranges, but no matter.

Thom,

Notwithstanding your long-winded rant... what is to compel any taxpayer to believe that we are looking at the best possible solution... the best possible use of our tax dollars... ?

All we have seen is one proposal from one consultant. Anyone who knows anything about solving these kinds of problems is fully aware that if you give the same existing situation to a dozen different architects that they will come up with a dozen different solutions.

With only one proposal to look at we have no way to factually know if this is the best or the worst solution. Yet if things continue on the current path we are about to embark upon a process that no one is going to be able to stop or change for the next 5-6 decades.

This is the time for thought, reflection, contemplation not a time to rush through this and gloss things over.

Anonymous 11/1/08 2:38 PM

You are absolutely correct. But I was concerned about the Sun's computers, they would not be able to take the steam that Higgin's would have spewed. And I am a stock holder (although a penny stock) as well.

And to "THOMy Boy"

Still did not answer my two questions. Type away, my boy. Your volumes of BS were never addressed by Healy Bender, but were made up by Jim "The Plagerist" Caudill (I wonder where he copied the information). You are way to trust worthy when you drink the kool aid of others.

Two other minor points.

1. The passage of the referrendum does not change my positions or the FACTS.

2. Just look at Benet. Started two years after 203, added a FANTASTIC Science Wing, even added lower level space for additional space for AP tests and other educational uses (for only $2 million). And the project is done, three years AHEAD of Central. And their worn out 100 year old classrooms are turning out the best ACT scores in Illinois. Simply put, results and efficiency.

for Anonymous on November 1, 2008 2:38 PM

I've actually looked through them. You characterization is completely incorrect. I suggest before you make such comments that you actually go read them.

These are inspection and evaluation documents that helped the district get a base line condition of the buildings, and outlined time-lines for repair or replacement of mechanical and physical systems.

At this link you can see the NCHS survey summary, and evaluation methodology

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/healy-bender_links.shtml

Here is the actual NNHS swimming pool evaluation. This is hardly some cobbled up boilerplate.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/h-b%20nnhs%20swimming%20pool%20eval%20vol3%20.pdf

Also,

If you are the same anonymous November 1, 2008 11:28 AM,

Again, allow me to disagree with you. Building and renovating HS's is a specialized field and I'm not sure that there are 6 firms in the Chicago Area that specialize in the field. Secondly, and I'm hazy on the exact facts but the state has some very goofy laws regarding SD's and hiring architects, I remember something like you have to hire them and then discuss fees after. So, I'm not sure they could do it even if there were 6 qualified firms. Also, Wight is a distinguished architectural firm here is their website. Please note the number of schools they have worked on. The York and Riverside Brookfield HS projects are comparable to what we are doing to Central

http://www.wightco.com/portfolio/index.php

I think you are incorrect here:

Step two is to then design and construct the building. This means in all reality that the voters have bought and paid for the building in step one before ever actually knew the details of what exactly they were about to buy or what will actually be delivered. The old saying... cart in front of the horse aptly applies.

No. an excellent outline of the school was presented before the referendum. It hardly makes sense to pay for final design work (which is what's going on currently) before the referendum passes. Can you imagine Dan Denys if the board spent all that money and then it failed? We'd still be hearing about it.

Frankly, the exterior which everyone is commenting on is irrelevant to the interior of the building, which is very close to what was originally presented, and is what really matters.

Anonymous wrote:

The land on which the garden plots are located was directly donated to the city of Naperville, not to the park district as was previously suggested.

This land was transfered from the city to the park district at the time the park district was created. Prior to that the park district was just another city department.

Since the creation of the park district as a separate taxing body I am not aware of any other land parcel having been donated, certainly not in the true sense of the word.

I never suggested the land was donated to the park district, I just said it was donated. That it was donated to the city and then transferred to the park district at the time the park district was created is irrelevant, as my point was that the land is a current park district asset that was NOT acquired with tax money.

Dan,

Are you really going to try to re-fight this argument? If so, then I guess I'll have to go dig up up where it ended. You remember where it ended don't you Dan? I backed you into a corner over the room size issue and you tried to slip away by changing an earlier post of yours to argue the opposite of what you had previously said. Pretty embarrassing when I posted both wasn't it?

Dan's continuous comments over there not being a classroom size standard in the Healy Bender report is analogous to me hiring a home inspector to inspect a home I want to buy, and then complaining that the inspector didn't tell me how large my family room should be........In the addition I plan on building in the future!!!

Straw man, straw man....

At the contention that the reason why they are spending, what he claims is an additional 40-60 million, rebuilding Central is only because they want bigger classrooms is really hilarious. As a rebuttal I'll offer the following that I wrote earlier this year:

Why rebuild Central?

Many have asked, “Why do we need to spend $87.7 million on Naperville Central High School (NCHS)?

Naperville Central High School (NCHS) is worn beyond minor repair; it’s time for its infrastructure to be substantially replaced and modernized. This does not mean that Central has not been maintained properly as some have claimed; Even when a facility is properly maintained, in time, its mechanicals will still have to be replaced and or modernized. When cost effectiveness is a concern, doing it as a one large project makes sense rather then piece-mealing it. This is what is being proposed for NCHS and is a significant portion of the renovation project expense.

TECHNOLOGY

It’s also time to bring the school up to 21st century standards. Simply put, if we want our schools to offer a 21st century educational experience, then we need to have modern educational technology and infrastructure to support it. This is a major concern and cost.

CLASSROOMS

A quick new additional comment here. One of the reasons why the classroom are larger than the old ones is that there are a number of labs (computers, peripherals) for a variety of subjects and that requires more space. English, science, even language arts all have larger lab style classrooms because of the technology. If this conversation goes on I'll dig up that information. My memory is lecture classes are 800 sf and the labs are 1200sf. my memory only, I'd have to look up to be sure.

The classroom number and size issue is a complicated question. NCHS average class size is listed as 21.6 students on the ISBE report card. Not so bad, right? Well, it’s not that simple, one number does not show the whole picture. Academic class sizes are all in the upper 20’s (26-29) and the PE classes are in the mid 30’s student. That overall school average is reduced because it includes every class: 20 special education classes, 9 literacy classes and the Academy classes all which have very small class sizes.

To deliver quality educational services, having an adequate number of classrooms matters. For example, District 203’s academy program identifies students that have lower academic standing and places them in small 10-12 student classes giving them the same college prep curriculum that the other students get, but in a small group setting with more one-on-one time with the teacher. The result: Higher academic achievement.

Many people do not realize that one of the most significant recent changes is that now all students are required to take the ACT test. The number of students taking the test has increased greatly and the additional students are typically lower scoring; yet, district 203 has been able to maintain high overall ACT scoring averages due to these specialized programs for the students. But this requires space and a lower teacher to student ratio. If we want to help every student reach their full potential, the district has to have room for these programs, and they need more space.

Having appropriate classroom size matters, too. NCHS classrooms are from 500 square feet (SF) to about 700 SF; too small for the number of kids that occupy them. Large modern metropolitan high schools typically have classrooms built to a 30 student, 30SF per student, 900 total SF educational building standard. Classrooms this size are needed for the large academic core classes and can also be utilized, if available, during the three lunch hours for smaller size classes, too.

Building a school and deciding on its capacities is a lot like designing a highway. You have to allow for the rush hour as best you can otherwise it is chaos.

A school’s “rush hour” is the core academic classes in the morning periods 1-3 (before lunch) and periods 7-8 after lunch. These classes have the largest number of students. To continue our traffic analogy, the district could add “lanes” by adding even more classrooms and teachers to reduce class size. But, a school district has to decide what maximum class size it can live with and design a building around that. Naperville 203 is, we believe, using a typical and sound industry standard that we think is sensible for NCHS.

Interestingly, there is a movement in the country that strives to reduce class sizes for academic courses to below 20 students as outcomes are improved; but as Naperville CUSD 203 is trying to do this as inexpensively as possible, that is just not an option.

CURRENT CLASSROOM CONDITIONS

Central has ZERO space available in periods 1,2,3 and 7 and period 8 is all but full.. They are using basement classrooms, portables, the LRC (library) and any possible place they can shove some kids into to make up the shortfall. This is not conducive to good learning. The shortage of rooms for all academic, elective, small group and individual tutoring classes (that is typical of today’s schools) is a mind-boggling challenge for Naperville Central High School’s principal.

Central needs larger and updated Science labs. They are short five biology classroom spaces. Classes share lab space on an every other day basis and teachers modify their curriculums to deal with the problem.

KITCHEN

A larger Kitchen will allow a district wide hot lunch program for all elementary schools and will eliminate inefficiencies; The current kitchen is across one of the busiest hallways in the school from the cafeteria. All food, including hot entrees, must be transported through whatever traffic occupies the hallway during lunch hours. Additionally the new cafeteria will be larger and will be multi-purpose with high ceilings, for example, the cheer and flag girls will be able to practice there.

SPECIAL ED FACILITIES

Appropriately designed, dedicated space is needed for the medically fragile special needs population that attends NCHS. Currently these students, up to age 22, are situated in two former business classrooms in the flat wing (causing the business classes to be shunted outside into the portables). This is not the kind of facilities that these children need. Central’s award winning adaptive PE students are in the hallway as the gyms are needed for every period of the day for other large PE classes.

UNTANGLING THE MESS

The district needs to create an organizational logic to a facility that has suffered from a patchwork of 16 additions over the years. This is important. Looking at the concept drawings, we can see that the various departments spaces can be grouped together allowing for a more efficient use of the space. This includes grouping the academic classrooms together, the PE facilities together and the Music and Theater rooms together. This is not a minor consideration; the traffic flow inside the building is a nightmare. The new plan will consolidate the major and elective areas and significantly improve the movement of students within the building.

BATHROOMS

More Bathrooms! There are one boys and one girl’s bathroom in the flat wing—we don’t know how they do it.

CONCLUSION

NCHS as it currently stands is not how a world-class school should have to operate. The correct questions to ask are as follows: Are we willing to spend an additional modest sum to give our students the best educational experience that we can provide? Considering that even after a referendum we will still be considerably less costly than the other highly performing comparable districts (see our analysis here), don’t our children deserve it? Do we think the other school districts will never improve or renovate their facilities.

Ask yourself, if you were moving to the western suburbs and toured some of the local high schools (e.g. Wheaton-Warrenville, Nequa Valley, Plainfield or Glenbard HS) and NCHS, which one would you pick? We think the answer is obvious. These students, our children, and the district have earned it. The community should live up to its promise of providing its children with the best educational experience that we can prudently afford and to do another multi-million dollar patch job just doesn’t make sense

Oh and Dan D,

What Thom didn't tell you about those 23 binders is that these 23 binders DO NOT contain thousands of pages of information that was specifically written to reflect the uniqueness of SD 203 buildings.

In the design and construction industry the content of these binders are known as "boilerplate templates". These documents reside on computers that are hooked up to high speed printers. With a little "front-end" "wordsmithing" any consultant can tweak these documents in a couple of hours to make them look like they were written for a specific client or a specific project.

Fact is if you go thru the consultant's client list and go visit all of their other clients you will find 23 +/- very similar binders lining their bookshelves as well. Impressive, shock, and awe? Not really unless you are a newby to the process and easily BS'ed by smoke and mirrors.

If you don't know where to look or what to ask for it is very easy to misled by the design and construction industry. So much money is at stake that we can not afford to let this process be run by inexperienced, street-savvy professionals. Sounds to me like the school board bought the whole sales and marketing pitch hook, line, and sinker. But then again, with this school board why am I not surprised?

The problem with the way the school districts tend to do things is that they get voters all riled up and spread fear that their children's education will suffer.

Step one is to pass the referendum. Step two is to then design and construct the building. This means in all reality that the voters have bought and paid for the building in step one before ever actually knew the details of what exactly they were about to buy or what will actually be delivered. The old saying... cart in front of the horse aptly applies.

For a project of this scale it speaks volumes about the professionalism of the school district procument system and process that their was no design competition among architects as would be the matter of course in the private sector. Instead we have seen the entire project handed off to favorite son architectural firm and everyone up to and including the school board is faced with one proposal to chose from. What this means is that we accept this awful design or outright reject it. The only other possible outcome is tweaking this design which most likely will result in only small changes.

The most important question is this. Why were at least 6-8 architectural firms not invited to submit design concepts? In case the school board is totally clueless... the construction industry is dead right not, architects are fighting for work, firms are competing like crazy for projects, and firms are slashing their fees. It is a buyers market, believe it.

From the postings so far on this thread there are far more posters who do not like the proposed design that those who do yet it appears the school board deliberately led us into this situation of only having one design concept instead of at least a half a dozen to chose from. That tells me the design is more about what the school board wants than the school board wanting public input into how this huge financial investment is going to be spent.

All the more reason for each and every one of us to be very concerned and very selective about who gets our vote for school board members.

Thom rambles so much that he must even confuse himself.

But I think he FINALLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION AFTER 5 BLOGS.

HURRAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are no standards for classroom sizes and constructive documentation for change. They are not in the binder.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

The classroom size is why 203 is spending $87 million on REBUILDING Central rather than $25 to $40 billion to RENOVATE and address science classroom deficiencies.

WHAT ABOUT THE STUDY?

The Healy Bender study said that Central was structurally sound. The older portions of the building could use better lighting, upgraded electrical service, and sprinklers on the top floor. Ok, then fix these items. But instead, for another $40 to $60 MILLION, the entire old 1950's structure (not the "cheap" stuff built in the 60's and 70's that Thom wrongly alludes to) will be totally gutted and rebuilt.

Rationale for the EXTRA $40 to $60 MILLION? Increase classroom sizes (that have functioned very well for almost 60 years) by 25%. Imagine if you needed a new carpet or windows in your house. You would totally destroy your house to make these repairs.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

Simply, nobody paid attention particularly at the Board level. Caudill (remember, the plagerist) wanted an new school and Leis (the superintendent) could not stand up to him. This was a WANT, not a NEED. Caudill really wanted a new school in Knoch Park and had to settle for this.

And it would have been very easy to correct the process.

WILL THERE BE MORE WASTE?

There is absolute silence from the administration. There are comments that there are subsequent phases and the costs will be low. Who knows. Scott and Steeple Run are supposedly ghettos, not becoming of a "World Class" district, but nobody addresses.

WHAT IS THE CORRECT ANSWER?

A comprehensive evaluation of the schools for the 21st Century. Yes, I support good schools and if a thorough and reasoned process were followed, I would support the outcome. Instead, we know about the bricks and mortar and do not know if the classrooms are adequate.

We already lost ten years of the 21st Century.

The land on which the garden plots are located was directly donated to the city of Naperville, not to the park district as was previously suggested.

This land was transfered from the city to the park district at the time the park district was created. Prior to that the park district was just another city department.

Since the creation of the park district as a separate taxing body I am not aware of any other land parcel having been donated, certainly not in the true sense of the word.

Thom, you need to think about your last answer. You clearly state the Healy Bender reports only look at the conditions of the buildings and systems. Like usual you haven't answered the question. Where has the district first determined what they really need for classrooms and where is that evaluation for every building. The district has admitted 2 years ago that it doesn't exist, therefore the whole process has been an excercise of whatever the district decides a school should be because they have embarked down a 115million dollar project with no standards for what they need for a classroom as a basis. That has been the problem from day one but it seems that 23 binders impresses you, its QUALITY not quantity and the District has never answered the key questions, until you can answer this size question you have no basis to defend everything.

Anonymous wrote:

"All Naperville Park District residents have paid for all park district assets thru our taxes over the years."

The land on which the garden plots are located was donated.

All Naperville Park District residents have paid for all park district assets thru our taxes over the years.

For the Naperville Park District to give away or even swap Park District property with just one school district is not fair and equitable. If the Park District is going to start swapping land then it better be prepared to have the same discussion with school district 204.

I'd like a total count of all the Naperville Park District land that has been turned over to school district 203 along with a comparison of how much has been provided on an equitable basis with school district 204. Actually since school district 204 is larger, both in area, population, and students, than school district 203 the amount of land which Naperville Park District should be proportionately providing to school district 204 would actually be a larger amount.

Until the question of fairness and equitability can be factually determined and communicated to all taxpayers throughout Naperville any talk of any land swaps should cease. Facts first. Plenty of time to discuss the need after the facts are clearly communicated.

Kevin,

If you and Dan want to try to convince people that the district didn't have any objective standards, and that Healy Bender just what, swagged it? then fine give it your best shot.

But it had to be quite a feat for HB to create those tens of thousands of pages, full of nothing, and for the district to just say "oh what the hell" lets rebuild Central, and do a bit of work on NNHS and Mill. Oh and we should appoint a "Potemkin" citizens committee who all are in the bag for the SD except for you, who is told my another member to shut up and vote for what the SD wanted. Sure everyone's going to believe that.

Me? I'm still reeling from the time it must have taken Dan to read all those tens of thousands of pages. Quite a feat eh?

And Dan's continued use of Straw Man questions? Pretty childish. You two could make quite a game out of all the things the report didn't tell us. Of course you never address the question of whether those questions should have been part of it's mandate do you? No, that would spoil the charade.

Dan,

Sheesch, we went over this last spring. It was really tiresome then. It is really disagreeable now.

Regarding this

1. Please point us to the page (in the stacks of binders)that states what the appropriate classroom size should be and the reference source for that information.

2. Point us to the page that evaluates classroom sizes throughout the entire district based on that standard.

Let me make this very simple. Healy Bender evaluated the mechanical systems and the physical structures of the districts 21 schools. That is it. Your continuing attempt to find fault because they didn't comment on classroom size standards is really weak.

Regarding this

What those binders will tell you is the condition of the mortar on every exterior wall, the roofs on every elevation, the door knobs on every door, etc. You would think that the buildings and grounds people could monitor this, but who cares, what's $350,000.

Dan, just because you think you know everything, doesn't mean that the SD shouldn't hire experts to inspect complex systems such as electrical, HVAC, plumbing, etc, and then give us an educated opinion of condition and life expectancy. Sure we could have had you do it for less that the $300K, but as the saying goes, "garbage in garbage out"

It's the same old, same old. No one bought any of this before the referendum vote, and nobody's gonna but it now.

Thom's pictures and his TOTAL NON-RESPONSE to my question illustrates almost all of his posts. He spews out information shamelessly defending the school district (who by the way SIMPLY IGNORED THE QUESTIONS--I send Thom copies of my correspondence with Tom Paulson).

So I ask my same two questions

1. Please point us to the page (in the stacks of binders)that states what the appropriate classroom size should be and the reference source for that information.

2. Point us to the page that evaluates classroom sizes throughout the entire district based on that standard.

To everyone else, Tom Paulson who was the administrator who oversaw this project could not provide us with an answer to this question, so it will be VERY HARD for Thom to do so.

What those binders will tell you is the condition of the mortar on every exterior wall, the roofs on every elevation, the door knobs on every door, etc. You would think that the buildings and grounds people could monitor this, but who cares, what's $350,000.

And Kevin ratifies my positions. Even Steve Deutsch will tell you that this capital "study" was a farce (by the way, he oppposed me in the election).

This latest ploy to "swap" land is just another arrogant response by District 203. But Thom has a point. The park district does use some 203 land in other areas. Swap ownership or some other equitable plan. But the plan on the surface has 203 grabbing land for NOTHING in return. If I were the park district, I would value the land in these outlying parks (using current deflated residential values--maybe $50,000 an acre if you are lucky) and swap it for the increase 203 land by Central (using $250,000 for more valuable land, maybe even $500,000 like the Brach Brodie.

And remember, the Park District does provide services that offset their use of land. But if the plan is not equitable, now is the time to renegotiate. And these are two separate governments that do report to different taxpayers (both non Park District like myself and 204 residents in much of the rest of the District).

But the current 203 approach should be rejected out of hand, it is simply not their land.

Thom

Dan is correct in his evaluation of those references the district did not have any objective standards for evaluating the schools. They stated this to the facilities committee which I was a member in response to community questions following presentations in 10/06. Referencing the Healy Bender reports does no good. The district formed the committee with "yes" men other than myself, to get the answer that we need to just spend money on the schools. When the whole process was questioned by myself, I was voted down punctuated by a comment by Mary Wong which is paraphrased here - "stop asking questions we just need to do what the school board wants". So Thom, do you still stand by your response that the healy bender reports answer dan's questions!

What neighboorhood charm is by Naperville Central?
Ball fields and a cemetary is all I see.

Hey folks, just be thankful you don't live in District 204, then you got something to complain about.

50 years from now I'll be 96, frankly, I'm not too worried.

Dan

I find your comment fascinating. You read all 23 binders? Really? That has to be tens of thousands of pages. How did you manage to accomplish this feat? When and where did you read it all?

Everyone, click on the link and then click on the "picture of entire Healy Bender survey-all binders" link. Our Mr. Denys is quite the industrious reader.

Let me also offer a little secret. Dan's trying to make another straw man argument again. Sigh.....

Oops, my bad,

Here is the correct link for my post above:

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/healy-bender_links.shtml

Thom,

FYI, your link didn't work.

-JQP

Thom,

Now that you took the picture of the documents (that we have all read, by the way), please point us to the page that states what the appropriate classroom size should be and the reference source for that information. Second, point us to the page that evaluates classroom sizes throughout the entire district based on that standard.

Two simple pieces of information, I could not find it it the stack.

Regarding this comment by Dan Denys;

Instead, we spent over $300,000 on reports that did not mention this concept once. And now those guys are fired and we have another set of architects charging $5 million and making these key decisions.

Dan often uses the dishonest tactic of taking a fact or statement and then criticizing it for not being, or including something irrelevant. This is an excellent example. The report Dan mentions here was a detailed survey of every school in D203 done by Healy Bender. They inspected and evaluated every school and its systems. That was the studies scope and responsibility. From this document came the understanding of the needs of the various schools, which ultimately, through a long detailed process, led to the referendum request for the repairs to NCHS, NNHS, and Mill elementary. So to complain that the question of longevity of the rebuilt Central wasn't asked in this study is a complete "straw man".

In a similar deceptive vein he claims that Healy Bender was fired because they were not selected to design the NCHS renovations, just so he can imply they were incompetent in their study. To this I say b**l s**t.

Healy Bender was retained to do the analysis. Wight was retained to do the HS renovations. Wight has a specialty in rebuilding HS's, and to great acclaim I might add. D203 selected the best vendor to do the two very different jobs. Further, the district has, I believe, hired another firm to do the construction management. Why? because that firm has specific strengths in that field. These are all positives. All Dan is trying to do here is take positives, and spin them into negatives to make D203 look bad.

Lastly, Dan complains about me not being able to produce details. Well, all of the above is old ground we plowed in the referendum threads where he made the same ridiculous charges. It took me taking the time to go over to the district offices and taking pictures of the study documents to finally shut him up. The link to those pic's is here,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/healy-bender_links.sh

FYI,

"Anonymous on October 28, 2008 12:31 PM" is me.

-JQP

Anonymous,

Respectfully, you have some specific questions. All I'm suggesting is that you address these questions directly to the district. When you get your answers, then by all means post them here. I don't see the utility of me doing it in your stead.

Anonymous 10 28 2008 @ 9:25 AM cleaerly knows what he is talking about. A very refreshing departure from the "District 203 Shrill" Thom Higgins.

Of course, these types of questions should be answered. Just like classroom sizes, enrollment trends, and other "specific" factors. A simple summary just like a facilities manager would provide his management in the private sector.

Instead, we spent over $300,000 on reports that did not mention this concept once. And now those guys are fired and we have another set of architects charging $5 million and making these key decisions.

And we will have an owners rep, but count on them not rocking the boat.

And again, I have been consistent with these comments. And Higgins says I am wrong, but cannot produce the details. Of course, it is hard for him because the District does not have them.

Anonymous,

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are describing problems that plague public construction projects only in that they are endemic to the construction industry in general. Are large-scale private projects really better managed? If so, how? Is there some kind of overseer in your typical private company for which there is no equivalent in the public sector?

In any case, I doubt it's because the stock-holders get involved in the nitty-gritty details, which is what you seem to be calling for here. Most voters---and I include myself in this group---are no more qualified to make judgements on these matters than they are to design a nuclear particle accelerator. District 203 could put all of the blueprints, materials lists, etc., on their website, but it would be Greek to most of us.

So what is the advantage of the kind of full disclosure that you seem to be asking for? Why not take up Thom's suggestion and contact the District to see if you can get the information you desire? If the powers that be in 203 are unwilling to cooperate with your request, and you discover that there is no qualified person or persons at the District whose responsibility it is to oversee this project, then I'd say you have a legitimate beef.

Respectfully,

JQP

New Building, Old Problem. No LAND!!!!

Thom,

We should all be troubled by the vast history and real experience of how all public projects are bid and specified. Selecting the low bid doesn't give any property owner much comfort with regard of the level of quality they are about to receive. Compared to the high bid... will we receive the exact same level of quality with the contractor taking less profit. Or as compared to the high bid will the contractor be making as much profit and delivering lower quality? You can't have it both ways and everyone familiar with the construction industry appreciates these realities.

We should also be troubled about the high level of fraud with material substitution that occurs in the construction industry. It is rare for material substitution not to occur and it leads to a multitude of problems. The taxpayers are left holding the bad when these problems manifest themselves years after the contractors are long gone and there is no legal recourse. Better to make sure up front that you get what we paid for.

I'm not assuming the worse of anything. I asked for questions and explained why the answers to these questions are important. You on the other hand have made some huge assumptions yourself with statement like "it will serve us well" and by making such statements you are attempting to persuade others to believe you. Either you have something factual to back up your statement or you are guilty of assuming the best absent any evidence.

It is more troubling that you don't seem to care and rather than calling for public disclosure would suggest I call to get answers. These are answers all taxpayers deserve to know, not just you or me or the people most involved with the project specifications and costs. If Craig Williams has the answer and you know him so well then why don't you contact him and suggest he post the answers here for all to read? I've been clear from the beginning that everyone should be entitled to know the decisions that have been made on how their money will be spent.

No one would be happier than me to learn that the school district has specified a 100 year life cycle for this construction project. No one would be happier than me to learn that the school district is receiving a 5 year unconditional warranty on the materials and labor. Fact is I don't know what we are getting, you don't know what we are getting, nor does the vast majority of taxpayers know what we are getting. All I'm asking for is full disclosure so that we know how well our money is being spent.

Anonymous,

I guess my comment to you is if you have a concern, why don't you simply call the District offices and ask some questions, or go to the next SB meeting and ask? I'm sure they will tell you what you want to know. I find it troubling that you seem to be assuming the worst absent any evidence. Craig Williams would be a good person to ask at D203 offices.

Blemun,

The Early Childhood Center will be located on Naper Blvd. The Dist Admin offices are on Hillside by NCHS

See below

http://www.naperville203.org/departments/buildings/BuildingtheFuture.asp

Anonymous -

The Early Childhood Center is a separate facility that will be located near the D203 Headquarters. This is a distinct facility that was outlined in the Referendum (along with NN improvements & various other school facility upgrades).

The intent of this center is to fulfill the mandate for providing Early Childhood education to at risk students. At risk can include students with physical or mental disabilities as well as students that may be immigrants trying to catch up on English skills etc... The district currently has a distributed system that crams these students into small corners of various schools. The new facility will allow access to properly trained staffs and adequate facilities for these students. Upon further research, you will find that most, if not all, school districts have programs such as this.

Hope that clears things up!

:~)

Thom,

Yes, I do know something about construction. Quite a bit actually and the knowledge is on the side of large, complex projects... not small residential developments.

Again the devil is in the detail. All architects receive specific instruction from the building owner with regard to what they want them to design. This information translates in to the scope of work and the project specifications.

You don't need to prove anything to me or anyone else. And this isn't a situation of me sitting down with anyone else either. The school district or their architects need to define and confirm exactly what we are about to purchase with out tax dollars. The know exactly the level of quality that is being specified. With out exact specifications it is impossible to take a project out to bid as the general contractors and subcontractors will be unable to calculate a bid without knowing the exact materials they will need to supply. This building is being designed with a specific life cycle in mind. That specific life cycle should be put on record for all taxpayers to know and understand. If the architects are unable to confirm the exact life cycle of this design it is a huge red flag and the school board, the school administration, and the taxpayers should be very concerned.

When each and every one of buys a home, or auto, or any other major purchase we know exactly what we are about to receive for our money. We should expect no less on public projects and how our tax dollars are being spent. The total cost is too large. Our tax bills are too large. This is not the time for anyone to be saying "trust me" or "it will serve us well". We can not afford to be misled, lied to, or have the truth spun around, twisted, or distorted. We need to hear the full truth. This is definitely the time for those who are directly responsible for spending our money to communicate exactly what we will be getting for out money. We deserve to know the exact life cycle and warranty that is coming with this construction.

Of course that opens up a whole different problem and that is with having a really good owners representative overseeing the project to make darn sure the contractors actually deliver what was specified and don't substitute inferior products which happens all too often these days and especially on public projects and those projects where the contractors will do whatever they can get away with to squeeze out additional profit. And yes there is an enormous amount of fraud that is perpetrated with material substitution in the construction industry. Someone better darn well make sure that we actually get what we pay for.

Anonymous,

I agree completely here,

Architects these days have the ability to design and specify materials for buildings that essentially make them disposable... or for any kind of various life cycles as demanded by the owners. All across the country there are thousands of high school buidlings that are 100 or more years old and which are still going strong. The difference being that they were well constructed to begin with and they have received necessary maintenance over the course of their life cycle.

My kids go to Ellsworth and it was built in 1927 and is still going strong. But it was built in an era when schools were a source of pride, and not only were they well built, they spent money to make them architecturally interesting too. You are absolutely correct that it all comes down to what quality of materials are specified. Where we part company, and where I’m confused, is your 50 year life contention. I don’t think the Admin has said they are planning for a 50 year life on the renovations. They may have said it will serve us for the next 50 years without requiring any substantial repairs ( this sounds familiar to me), but any building has to have work done on it as it ages.

The problem with the parts of Central built in the 70-80’s is they were cheaply built, and not particularly well designed, and now they are going to be bulldozed. It’s a complete waste. This admin understands how wasteful that is and they are not designing a throwaway school. I talked at length to the Architects in preparation to write the following,

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

There’s no way to prove this to you. Unless you have an extensive construction background and you sit down and talk to the Architects in depth, you have to take them at their word and they are steadfast in their desire to build a durable structure.

I was happy to hear that as the design has progressed, as they find savings in certain areas they are plowing the savings into upgraded (more expensive initially) systems that are more energy efficient, saving us in the long run. Because of all the bad decisions regarding Central in the past they are very concerned about getting it right this time.

Love it, love it! The students seem to be happy with it as well.

Thom,

"It will serve us well." That simply is a pile of horse hockey and you know it. Naperville Central is keeping the "new bits" as you like to call them which means that all of the older and original "bits" had a life cycle of 50 years or less.

Architects these days have the ability to design and specify materials for buildings that essentially make them disposable... or for any kind of various life cycles as demanded by the owners. All across the country there are thousands of high school buidlings that are 100 or more years old and which are still going strong. The difference being that they were well constructed to begin with and they have received necessary maintenance over the course of their life cycle.

For a public supported building like a community high school to have a life cycle of only 50 years is simply unacceptable, especially considering the trend these days is to pay for the cost with 30 year instead of the historic 20 year bonds. It is insanity to spend 3/5's of the life cycle paying down the debt and then only be able to enjoy 2/5's of the life cycle without debt before the entire process repeats itself. Plus it is even more unfair to the taxpayers who just happen to reside in the school district during the paying down of the debt part of the life cycle.

The one thing I have been waiting to read and which has not been reported anywhere to date on the renovation project is the life cycle this project is being designed to provide. Let us all say a prayer that the architects have something far more significant and durable in mind than the 50 years or less we received with the existing building otherwise we are getting a worse deal than we had. And while we are at it, it would also be nice to know exactly what kind and length of warranty the general contractor is going to provide for all of this allegedly superior quality construction.

The devil is in the detail and knowing the right questions to ask. We are told that "Yeah it could have been done on the cheap but we would pay for it later." Right now the vast majority of taxpayers have no idea or even a clue as to what level of quality we will be receiving. How do we know for sure that we won't have worse problems than Oswego East sooner than they did? To anyone who says we won't or can't I say prove it.

For those who didn't follow the discussion of renovating of Central closely, please realize it will be all but a new school. The newer bits that are in good shape, the pool and auditorium for example, are staying, as are a lot of hallways, and common utility areas (this saves real money).The educational area will be for all intents brand new, and offering the latest in design and technology. The difference is this time, vs some of the work done in the 1970's-80'S, is it is being done to a level of quality that it will allow it to be with us for many many years without problems.

Would a new school have had it's advantages, especially if it was on a larger site? Sure. But this town wasn't in favor of spending the additional $30-50 million to do it. Yeah it could have been once again done on the cheap but we would pay for it later. Oswego East is pointed to often because it is very attractive and yest inexpensively done. The problem is while it's only a few years old it is already having major problems. Not good.

The district, and the architects did a remarkable job effectively designing what is really a new school with in the old school. It will serve us well.

"The land site is not large enough to accommodate the proposed facilities."

Good point. Proposed facilities... and the very first step is to determine IF any of these proposed facilities are absolutely needed and critical to support the educational mission of a public high school OR are they just nice to have amenities that do not serve all students or just serve a very selective few.

How often have we seen both the School and Park Districts go off and spend million after million of our tax dollars on wasteful and unnecessary projects? This is not exactly a good economic time for anyone to be wasteful or frivolous.

There are thousands of high schools across the county who have found their campus land locked and surrounded by other development that restricts their lateral growth. Such is the reality for Naperville Central. And that is a reality that is not ever going to change.

This is the direct result of being cheap back in the 50's and taking free land over a new school site that would have allowed for proper planning and growth. At every opportunity since then both the school board and the voters have taken the cheap way out and constructed a series of cheap additions, one after the other, until we find ourselves today with this sprawling, cobbled together building.

The one and only solution that is ever going to fix this problem and allow for better utilization of the available land area is for everyone to realize that the building simply has to go up, not out. Same for parking, and the same for athletic facilities. Stacking classrooms and labs and athletic facilities, and support services, etc. is the only way a better utilization of the available land area will ever be achieved.

Once again the voters in this school district have now taken the cheap way out and voted to put a band-aid on cancer. I fully agree that the quality of education is vastly more important than the quality of the facility. Effective learning can take place in a tent or a shack for that matter. The only thing that is relevant in term of the existing facility is how much we have already paid for what we have and how much we are willing to continue to keep paying to these same mistakes alive and unresolved.

In part, we are dealing with many of the current problems because voters in the 50's and at every referendum since then chose the cheap route and essentially passed the ball forward for others to make the tough decision somewhere in the future. Now we have gone and done the same exact thing, took the cheap route, and again passed the ball to the future.

Never say never. sooner or later there will be a day when all of this comes to a head and the wrecking ball will have to be brought in to once and for all time fix all of the many sins of the past with this troubled building. The tragedy at that point in time will be to look at the total amount that will have been spent up over the life cycle and the taxpayers who follow us will only be able to shake their head in disgust and amazement at the staggering amount of money that will have been squandered and wonder why our thinking was so shortsighted.

Talk about being penny wise and pound foolish... and that will have been us.

Central was a dump back 18 years ago. It is about time they redo the place. I think the designs look good. I was for tearing the whole place down-but I am very happy about the design. I think NVHS has a "blah" look to it. The new central will look very modern and clean.

What is being overlooked? The land site is not large enough to accomodate the proposed facilities. Failure to recognize the fact the site is not large enough, will only create future problems.

We don't need Taj Mahals, we just need a building to teach in. Stop wasting community resources on all these extravagant buildings.
When a kid is sitting at his desk, he doesn't care what the school looks like? This isn't going to change test scores a bit.

Spend money on programs and supplies, not bricks and mortar.
The city and schools just continue to misallocate monies on these types of projects. The Multi-Purpose Public Works Service Center is another example of this type of excess.

Is it any wonder the city is running a deficit and the schools are always asking for more and more money?

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/letters/1229600,6_4_NA19_LETTERS_S1.article

This collection of poorly planned and cheaply built additions reflects low bid government purchasing at its worst. I don't care how much glass and aluminum you throw at this eyesore it is still going to look like 1950's ugly and cheap. Forward looking... maybe as far forward as 1960.

For a clue on what this is going to look like in a couple of years drive up to the north end of town and take a close look at the Lucent buildings. Here we are talking a private business that isn't doing maintenance on the cheap like the school district and look at how badly all of this glass and aluminum has aged in just a few years. What will it look like in another 10 or 20 years?

Is that what we want our high school to look like in 20, 30, 40 years as well? Good god, I hope not!

And how much worse will it age and how much more quicklly knowing the SD never spends a dime on maintenance... just waits until things fall totally apart and then come after us with another referendum.

Anonymous,

I am not kidding anyone. I am simply stating that I feel it is an appropriate look for a school that was built in the 50s. It ties the additions together with a common theme of curving glass and is not looking to imitate a style from a hundred years ago. Sorry for seeing it in a positive light.

Why is it that the initial look on most people's face after first seeing the pictures is the same look they have after sucking on a lemon?

Forward looking??? Who are you kidding?? This design is about as forward looking as a Wal Mart for god's sake. Seems to me the architects tried to out do ugliness with the city hall building across the street.

While we are calling a spade a spade... the original building was never designed to be mid-century modern... it was by design and construction mid-century cheap. This town was run by a bunch of penny pinching farmers back then and the penny pinching shows throughout the entire building and is mostly to blame for the vast majority of the current set of problems we are dealing with.

You can put a bow on a ugly girl, but she is still ugly. The architects blew this design big time. Tell them to try again or fire them and get another firm that can come up with a design the community will embrace.

At this point I could give a rat's a$$ what it looks like. As soon as my kids graduate I am leaving Naperville anyway. I plan to let some other sucker pay off the 20 years of new bonded debt.

The design is forward looking and seems to meld with the mid-century modern look of the original building. It is good to see an architect that does something with some originality and not a through back building that looks like its from the 1890s.

NVHS looks like a prison from the outside. What does everyone expect a school in this day and age to look like anyway? It's more important to have safety and education at the top of the list. Naperville needs to get over the frosting part and concentrate on the cake.

The plans for NCHS don't look as bad as some of the other schools around here. Dan is right - the upgrades should look cohesive with the older sections, not just thrown together, if this is the route the district takes.

District Early Childhood programs are NOT "day care facilities for everyone." Get a clue.

I agree with the two Anonymouses (Anonymi?): the "modern" look risks looking dated very quickly. It would be better to give the design more staying power by focusing on a "timeless" appearance.

Big, ugly box!!!!!!! Awful! Please hire a firm that can draw a timeless beautiful school. NVHS has a charming enterance with the school bell, red brick. Classic style not some designer's silly modern look!!!!!! The building is a dump in the inside and out. I was recently inside and was shocked how Naperville brags up their schools and yet has horrible facilities! Didn't we learn anything about the lack of stlye/charm from the misplaced Mill. tower?

What were the choices? I would think the school board, at a minimum, should have taken SOME initiative to review them.

QUESTIONS

How efficient will the space be? The rounded ends will create significant gaps in space.

How will the materials match to the current facility? Go take a look at Downers Grove Noth. They have three different colors of brick, the building looks like a bunch of additions. A marked contrast to Downers Grove South where they blended additions in very well.

How does the cost compare to more traditional options?

The real question is "Who is making the threshhold decisions on spending $87 million of the taxpayer dollars?" We would hate to be left with a building like the Aurora West "north" campus that was abandoned and ultimately rebuilt by the state when IMSA was established. The West Aurora taxpayers lost everything.

That darn TRANSPARENCY.

Anonymous on October 22, 2008 6:03 PM, there is a separate Early Childhood Center being built in Naperville for the district...they just made a mistake by putting it in with the pictures of the new Naperville Central High School. There is no Early Childhood Center in the new NCHS. The ECC was a part of the referendum too.

The proposed look is less than welcoming or friendly. It is more reminiscent of a bland office building than a community high school. The "eyebrows" will quickly date the renovations and hardly provide for a "timeless look" that is usually the hallmark of a school.

Overall, the community voted to save the existing building and improve what is "inside" the building... electrical, plumbing, mechanical, etc. Why is any money being wasted on the outside of the building? Is there a structural problem that requires the outside walls to be replaced? Or is this just another way for the architects to inflate the scope of work and their fees?

I took the time to go to the Naperville Sun web site and look at all of the pictures that are posted there. Towards the end of the set there are a couple of views titled "early childhood center"... what in the heck is this? Why is there an early childhood center inside a high school? Are that many Naperville Central students getting pregnant that an early childhood center is needed? Even if that is the case I'm not sure it is the responsibility of the SD 203 taxpayers to be providing day care facilities for anyone.