Courtesy graphicSchool board expected to decide on FHS design option
After months of discussions with students, teachers, architects and the public, the Fayetteville School Board is expected to decide on a direction to take for the FHS renovation project at this Thursday’s board meeting.
Due to limits in available funding, the 10-year master plan which was unveiled to the public last week will have to be completed in two parts since there’s only enough money for one part right now. Each part will include two phases.
The board is now tasked with deciding which part to begin construction on first.
It should be noted that funding for the second part of the master plan are not included in the original bond money allocated to the district by the State for this particular project.
The master plan
The four quadrants
The master plan divides the current campus into four sections with the current classroom space being labeled as quadrant 1. Quadrants 2, 3 and 4 will be all-new structures while quadrant 1 is slated to receive a complete renovation that will house six small learning community centers. These centers are planned as an effort to provide the benefits of a small school environment within a large-sized facility.
Quadrants 2 and 3 will be home to the public functions facilities and will include a new performing arts center, a gymnasium and a cafeteria and will serve as a new, identifiable face to the campus that fronts Martin Luther King Blvd.
Quadrant details
Quadrant 4 will connect to quadrant 1 to make up the academics facilities and will house a new 600-student small learning center that will bring the total capacity of the school to 2,400 students.
The public functions and academics sections of the new school will be divided by an outdoor classroom and green space area that stretches the entire width of the campus.
Option 1
The first option would include construction of quadrants 2, 3 and 4 and would not touch the current classroom facilities. The outdoor green space is also included. The obvious advantages include minimal disruption to students while the new facilities are being constructed and an overall cost savings. Another plus is that the first small learning community that is built will be able to be tested before implementing the new centers across the board.
Click to see complete pros/cons and phases for Option 1
Option 2
The second option would include renovation of the current campus (quadrant 1) as well as construction of quadrant 2. As with the first option, the green space is also included. Obvious advantages include modernization of the entire existing learning center including 100 percent of the existing core classroom space.
Click to see complete pros/cons and phases for Option 2
After the presentations last week, the architectural team of Hight Jackson, DLR Group and Marlon Blackwell took public comment at each meeting. Below are some of the questions that were asked followed by the team’s answers.
Q: Could either option be completed within three years?
A: Yes. Both options, including the two phases that each requires can be finished in three years, said the team.
Proposed green space
Q: Will the green space between each structure be safe and secure?
A: Although plans aren’t finalized, the architects said they were confident in being able to provide security.
Q: Could a canopy be built between the two structures to keep students dry on rainy days?
A: The team said that even though that wasn’t a part of the initial design, if the district wants a connection, a few possibilities exist.
Whichever option is chosen, it’s clear that our city’s high school will be receiving a much-needed facelift as well as a major overhaul in terms of its infrastructure over the course of the next 10 years (or less).
Download the architects’ presentation on the design options for Fayetteville High School for more imagery.
To see even more, check out the video from the special board meeting on Jan. 14, 2010.
If the above slide show doesn’t load, please visit the entire set on Flickr.
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
By Daniel Maner on January 26th, 2010
Option 1 seems to be the clear best choice for the first phase of the 10 year master plan. The advantages of minimal disruption for the students and cost savings alone make it the more favorable of the two options. The fact that it will provide the most needed improvements in a new cafeteria space, performing arts space and a new gymnasium to boot also are good reasons to chose it. The addition of a new learning space in which to help house students while the current learning space is reconstructed is another reason to chose option 1.
The very visible results from option 1 will also help in the push to find a new source of revenue to complete the second phase of the 10 year master plan. Option 2 would leave a uneven campus front along MLK Jr. Blvd and the possibility of a backlash against future campus improvements.
By Andy Roo on January 26th, 2010
Is there seriously a debate on this?
Option 1 makes sense, whereas Option 2 does not.
Everyone forgets that the fanciness of the school buildings does not influence the level of education in those buildings. Fancy architecture can sure be inspirational, I’ll agree – but inspiration by no means has to exist within the facilities of education.
The students will be fine even if the second phase (the complete renovation of quadrant 1 – existing facilities) never takes place. It’ll save the taxpayers some money too.
By Boyd Logan on January 26th, 2010
The editorial from the NWATimes pushed for Option 2. As an involved party, I will say that Option 1 was much more attractive. However, it was clearly presented as such by the architectural firms. In the end, I’m in support of Option 2, but I dislike how the presentation was so heavily skewed in favor of it.
Additionally, I disagree that Option 1 will help to build voter support for the eventual interior renovations of Option 2. On the contrary, I feel that by fixing the facade and the public face of the building, we’re going to fix many of the problems visible to the public. When we push for a millage to fix the interior of the building, the public perception may be that the building is new, beautiful, and not in need of further renovation.
All that being said, I do support Option 2. Mainly due to the fact that it represents the biggest bang for our buck, and that it will cause the least amount of disruption to student learning during construction. I just think we need to be completely realistic about the picture before us.
By Boyd Logan on January 26th, 2010
Argh!
I completely confused my options in my previous post. I’m in favor of Option 1, but dislike how heavily the presentation was skewed to make it appear more attractive.
By Todd Gill on January 26th, 2010
@Boyd – We’re looking into a comment system that will allow a brief editing period before the comment is final, FYI.
Trackbacks