Agenda - 12-11-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ducing construction quality to loner the project budget, but it is equally effective to reduce functional ade- quacy, Recognize, though, that either decision will have an impact on the kind of school building you construct and how well it supports -our educational needs. When you choose a lower Icvel of construction quality, your decision will affect the building's appearance and its operat- ing and maintenance costs. When you decide on a lower level of func- tional adequacy, you will have less space for educational programs and central service facilities. The third variable —the cost of the site --can range from land do- nated at no cost to high -cost urban sites. Be sure to establish the site cast early to eliminate adverse impacts on your total budget. And remem- ber that you cannot accurately esti- mate site development costs until site soil tests have been made. Un- usual site conditions do occur- Ad- ministrators at one recently com- pleted high school had to spend twice as much on site development as on building costs because of un- usual site conditions. (Superb out- door athletic facilities added to the site development costs.) Although fixed equipment costs, movable equipment costs, profes- sional fees, contingencies, and ad- ministrative costs are usually less variable than other budget costs, they are frequently underestimated by school officials. Using our cost estimate analysis model" can help you avoid unpleasant budget sur- prises —and get the school facilities that support your educational ob- jectiyes. i] CRS Sirrine has incorporated the high school budget planning model itlto a High School Expert System for schools with enroll- ments of between 1,000 and 2,000 students. The program includes calculation models for predicting the size of a school, an enrollment formula for forecasting areas, and budget summaries. For information, write CRS Sir - rine. Inc.. 1111 West Loop South, P.O. Box 22 -+27 Houston 7 -277; 713/552.2000. Elementary School Design Why are today's elementary schools so much bigger than the ones built in the 1960s? Smaller classes are one factor, but the main reason is additional programs and services —all with their own space requirements. f your school sys- tem is gearing up for a bond referen- dum to finance a new elementary school, you'd better be prepared to face a questioning public. In the last five years, my firm has designed ap- James E. Rydeen, A.I.A., is president of Armstrong, Torseth, Skold, and Rydeen, Inc, an architecturefirm in Minneapo- lis, He is the former chairman of the American Institute of Architects' Na- tional Committee on Architecture for Education and Cultural Arts Spaces. By James E. Rydeen proximately 20 elementary schools. And we've found that, across the U.S., in school systems large and small, rural and urban, rich and poor, the same question arises time after time: "Does our new school really need all that space, or are you just providing fancy frills ?" This persistent question reflects dramatic changes in what we re- quire in an elementary school in 1989 compared to what was ex- pected of a typical elementary school constructed in 1969. Twenty years ago, a four - section K -6 school with four classrooms per grade typically housed 840 students in a 50,000- square -foot building, which works out to 60 square feet per student. Here's the arithmetic: • Grades 1 -6: 24 classrooms x 30 students = 720 students • Kindergarten: 2 classrooms x 30 students x 2 (two half -time ses- sions) = 120 students * Total number of students: 840 • 50,000 square feet - 840 = 60 square feet /student Now, let's look at a typical four. section K-6 school designed in 1989. Today's buildings tend to be larger and student - teacher ratios tend to be BUILDING EDUCATION — May 1989 A13