A Perfect Storm Could Destroy Providence's Historical Character
Once Barack Obama is sworn in as President of the United States, his first priority will be a stimulus package to help the economy. I've seen amounts ranging from $600 billion to $1.3 trillion, but the most common estimate seems to be around $800 billion. The money would be used to finance transportation projects, green energy projects, and rennovation/rebuilding schools. Massive amounts of money will be funneled to cities and states to complete infrastructure projects that are in the planning stages.
At first glance, this seems like a good thing. It could create many jobs, help jump start the economy, and improve the infrastructure. I have problems with aspects of the stimulus package, but I won't address them now. Instead, I would like to focus on how this money could be spent by Providence. I fear that the money would be used by the city to implement the ideas published in the DeJong study.
If you're not familiar with the DeJong study, it is essentially a study championed by David Cicilline and Donnie Evans which addressed the condition of Providence's educational facilities and how the system could be reconfigured and improved (link below). To summarize, the study had a strong bias toward rennovating and favored demolishing historic buildings and replacing them with new buildings that will probably be as awful as some of the City's other new schools. Many of Providence's schools are a mess, and they do need major rennovations, which I strongly support. What I oppose is demolishing historic buildings that could become functional and beautiful at a cost that is likely equal to, or below the cost of new construction.
A quick reading of the DeJong study will also turn up some problems, such as underestimating the costs of environmental remediation. If you are a Providence resident, you may recall the controversy surrounding the construction of two schools on Springfield St 9 years ago. The schools were built on the site of a former municipal dump. The site had to be covered with clean fill and the site must be constantly monitored. The City was taken to court, but unfortunately, the schools were allowed to open. The opinions of neighbors and parents were ignored. While many new schools would be built on sites currently used as parks, with additional costs for rebuilding new parks, I could certainly envision new schools being built on controversial sites.
Once the stimulus package passes, keep a close eye on how the money will be spent, and pay attention to any of David Cicilline's plans to build new schools. The district's buildings need a great deal of work, but this isn't the sole reason for poor performance. Teachers, parents, and students must be held accountable for their own performance. Pushing through an ill advised, billion dollar school construction project is nothing more than David Cicilline's attempt to look like he's doing something useful.
http://www.providenceschools.org/dejong.html
At first glance, this seems like a good thing. It could create many jobs, help jump start the economy, and improve the infrastructure. I have problems with aspects of the stimulus package, but I won't address them now. Instead, I would like to focus on how this money could be spent by Providence. I fear that the money would be used by the city to implement the ideas published in the DeJong study.
If you're not familiar with the DeJong study, it is essentially a study championed by David Cicilline and Donnie Evans which addressed the condition of Providence's educational facilities and how the system could be reconfigured and improved (link below). To summarize, the study had a strong bias toward rennovating and favored demolishing historic buildings and replacing them with new buildings that will probably be as awful as some of the City's other new schools. Many of Providence's schools are a mess, and they do need major rennovations, which I strongly support. What I oppose is demolishing historic buildings that could become functional and beautiful at a cost that is likely equal to, or below the cost of new construction.
A quick reading of the DeJong study will also turn up some problems, such as underestimating the costs of environmental remediation. If you are a Providence resident, you may recall the controversy surrounding the construction of two schools on Springfield St 9 years ago. The schools were built on the site of a former municipal dump. The site had to be covered with clean fill and the site must be constantly monitored. The City was taken to court, but unfortunately, the schools were allowed to open. The opinions of neighbors and parents were ignored. While many new schools would be built on sites currently used as parks, with additional costs for rebuilding new parks, I could certainly envision new schools being built on controversial sites.
Once the stimulus package passes, keep a close eye on how the money will be spent, and pay attention to any of David Cicilline's plans to build new schools. The district's buildings need a great deal of work, but this isn't the sole reason for poor performance. Teachers, parents, and students must be held accountable for their own performance. Pushing through an ill advised, billion dollar school construction project is nothing more than David Cicilline's attempt to look like he's doing something useful.
http://www.providenceschools.org/dejong.html
Posted by Damien Baldino at 12/31/2008 6:26 PM 
Categories: Barack Obama, David Cicilline, Providence
Categories: Barack Obama, David Cicilline, Providence
First, I think this statement doesn't make any sense:
"the study had a strong bias toward rennovating historic schools and favored demolishing historic buildings and replacing them with new buildings "
Is the study in favor of renovation of existing buildings or in favor of demolishing them?
Second, FWIW, one of the first projects in Providence is the renovation of Nathan Bishop Middle School. There was much discussion about whether renovation or demolition/new construction was the best option, but the renovation idea won out.
As someone who has worked for close to three years toward re-opening Bishop, I am happy with the outcome.
Bishop is a stately example of 1930s architecture. It is solid as a rock, and contains some beautiful appointments, such as lots of marble. Also, one cannot discount the "green" value of not putting an entire old building into landfill.
The architects (Architectural Involutions) are very forward-thinking and have produced some outstanding schools here in RI and elsewhere. Despite the old shell, Bishop will be a state-of-the-art school, the most advanced in R.I.
All of this with the support of the Mayor and the School Department. The choices that have been made here have been thoughtful and smart, and should be recognized by all as such.
Reply to this
Nathan Bishop is a perfect example of how Providence should approach educational facilities. From what I've read, the City is handling it perfectly. Unfortunately, I don't have faith that the Mayor will continue to support these types of projects.
Check out this link:
http://www.providenceschools.org/files/A71590451E2543DC8CC3D5A58E4ECF3B.pdf
You will see some interesting quotes from Mayor Cicilline. Here's one:
“If we do not come together on a full-fledged mission to improve education, we will never see the academic performance required to give our children good opportunities as adults and to keep our city and state competitive. This rebuilding effort is a critical part of our mission because research shows very clearly that students cannot get a 21st-century education in a decaying 19th- or early 20th-century building,” said Mayor David Cicilline.
The Mayor criticizes historic buildings and mentions rebuilding. If you read these quotes after reading the Dejong study, it seems fairly obvious where the Mayor's preference lies.
I have two questions for you. First, have you read the Dejong Study in its entirety? Second, how was the renovation financed? I know the State reimburses cities and towns for new school construction. Is this also true for renovations? If it isn't, it would further support my argument, since it would be cheaper for Providence to build new schools and pass on the bulk of the costs to the State.
By the way, if the planning for Nathan Bishop has been going on for 3 years, then it clearly predates the Dejong study.
Reply to this
Damien,
1) I've read a lot of the DeJong study, but I guess I can't say I've read it in its entirety. In any case, it was several years ago. However, I'm not here to defend DeJong. In fact, DeJong recommended closing Bishop or MLK Elementary. We organized in part to oppose that.
Whatever DeJong says, I believe that the decision to renovate rather than destroy Bishop was supported by the Mayor. I think he listened to a lot of people and made a decision based on input from the stakeholders, as he should have done.
2. AFAIK, renovation is funded exactly as is new construction. I don't think the formula varies according to that. The initial projections for Bishop showed building new to be cheaper (not considering the environmental issues- throw away a building vs. building to modern green standards. AI3 brought this building to a very high green standard, BTW). Later adjustments showed the costs of the two options to be relatively similar.
3, The community organizing around Bishop has been going on since Bishop was closed in April 2006. The DeJong study came out roughly the same time. The actual city/ppsd planning came later.
Don't think that Bishop was entirely conceived and planned by the city. There has been a very strong community group pushing things along.
PS. Would you consider dark text on a light background for the blog. Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to read.
Reply to this