I am not interested in building a "revenue source" ......(talk about more congestion).....but your comments are telling....so we don't need a 12 lane pool it would just be fun to build one and make money off of it. Ridiculous again.

Not ridiculous or congested. Modern and Safe. And not a revenue source. An opportunity to off-set operating costs. Open pool = open pool. You don't shut them down to save money.

Here is the information I think you are wishing to find for the construction of the school. http://www.onebloomfieldunited.com/sites/default/files/the_plan/bhhs_budget_estimate_detail_120316.pdf

Keep in mind, that all high schools have non classroom areas like gyms, pools, locker rooms, cafeterias and auditoriums, even our existing high schools. You also need to understand how this design and plan compares to keeping two existing buildings open and then relate the square footages to the number of students being educated within each of the buildings. But even that will only tell you part of the story. The rest is an understanding of the needs for educating both our current and future students. Some believe the classrooms as they exist will serve just fine. Others, and I include myself in this group, believe that our students will benefit from more flexible classrooms and support spaces. My opinion is based on the recommendations from educators, both in our district and from higher learning (my own personal contacts).

I believe that keeping both the existing buildings open will be less efficient from a square footage point of view and a cost to operate point of view than one building for a 9th - 12th grade configuration. We can look at the sqft numbers all we want, but it won't give us a complete picture.

One more thing.....both the District's website http://www.bloomfield.org/ and
One Bloomfield United's website http://www.onebloomfieldunited.com/
have a ton of information. Take a look plans and the details of the proposal.

My posts always end up as pending. Eventually it will post twice, sorry about that, but I want it to post immediately and it should be before my other post.

Here is the information I think you are wishing to find for the construction of the school. http://www.onebloomfieldunited.com/sites/default/files/the_plan/bhhs_budget_estimate_detail_120316.pdf

Keep in mind, that all high schools have non classroom areas like gyms, pools, locker rooms, cafeterias and auditoriums, even our existing high schools. You also need to understand how this design and plan compares to keeping two existing buildings open and then relate the square footages to the number of students being educated within each of the buildings. But even that will only tell you part of the story. The rest is an understanding of the needs for educating both our current and future students. Some believe the classrooms as they exist will serve just fine. Others, and I include myself in this group, believe that our students will benefit from more flexible classrooms and support spaces. My opinion is based on the recommendations from educators, both in our district and from higher learning (my own personal contacts).

I believe that keeping both the existing buildings open will be less efficient from a square footage point of view and a cost to operate point of view than one building for a 9th - 12th grade configuration. We can look at the sqft numbers all we want, but it won't give us a complete picture.

A few weeks ago, I went through the schedules that Elizabeth linked us to.
The results are:
by square footage: Instruction 48%, Common area 17%, Sports 19%, Arts 16%.
by dollars: Instruction 37%, Common area 26% Sports 22%, Arts 14%.

What does this mean? We would have to work with FNI or another expert who have nationwide studies on high school buildings. Is it worth the effort? I personnally don't think so but if someone really wants to pursue this, take this question to Rob Glass to have FNI provide us a comparison of our building vs. avg. HS. They could also provide us ranges, high/low for arts and sports.
I'm sure there are urban districts and districts that only want 3 R's that have very low arts/sports buildings. Is that what we want?

The following links will take you to answers to your question.

1.High School Estimates by Category
3.Schematic_estimates_details-111019

Howard
While the percentages you have assigned to the different spaces in the new high school are mathematically accurate, it isn't realistic to think that a space would be used only for that which it is titled on blueprints. While the primary use for a gym is for in-school physical education classes and also extra curricular activities, you should also expect that the gym would be big enough to hold an all-school assembly. Neither of our current high schools can seat all of the students in one space. Likewise, an auditorium can be used for numerous classes during the school day (theater, choir, symphony band, speech), but the space can also be used for speakers who can address an entire grade or academic department rather than being limited to one class at a time The planned BHHS has spaces that are flexible and that are not bookmarked for one designation only.
I believe, Howard, that we agree with each other but I wanted to add this piece to your comment.

Judy, you are 100% correct. We both agree on your points.
Realizing that your comments can apply to almost any HS in the nation, using nation-wide statistics to compare ourselves to others is still valid.
My statistics are only based upon what the space is primarily used for. To do more would require a usage time study, much more involved than is required in this situation.

Howard, we need to look at $$$ allocated to non-academic specs, not square feet. I tried to post the answer in dollars but it looks lik the links didn't take. I'll try again.

Chris, look again at my previous posting. There are 2 lines of figures, by sq. ft. and also by $.

You were invited to debate but failed to show......

Jenny your comment ---
"Seriously, if you want a big GYM, there are plenty of nearby districts that don't have much else to offer. Houses are affordable in districts where sports are more important than math, science and what we generally consider to be "school." "
--- was not only mean spirited, it put down, belittled, degraded and denigrated other districts as well as people in in this community who value the co-curriculars our district offers along with the excellent core education we all prize.

Debate the issue.

Oh great, now we are building this monstrosity to rent it out

I am not talking about building it to rent it out. A new pool would be built first and foremost to service the students and the community. I was merely pointing out that there is a huge demand to help offset operating costs. Oh - and monstrosity?? Come on! Calm down.

I believe there will be a huge demand for the single pool by our own district students. Perhaps even more demand than we will have capacity for. I just don't see significant opportunities to rent it out.

So... Let me get this straight. 'There would be huge demand for the single pool by our own district students. Perhaps even more demand than we will have capacity for.'

Yet B20/20 constantly states that this new pool is an extravagance that is not warranted? I'd really love it if B20/20 got their story straight. Which is it? Is it to extravagant and a waste of money, or is it an expenditure that is clearly warranted and needed?

I think the truth is... No has just become a reflex to anything put forward to improve our district.

First, I would appreciate it if you would kindly address me as one person who agrees with many others that the ballot proposal should be defeated. People who have this goal have any different reasons for believing that a No vote is best for the students and community. Many of these people align themselves with B2020 because they share this common goal. Your use of B2020 labeling as if we are one person is inappropriate.

So back to your original question. Today we have two swimming pools. If the bond proposal passes we will have one. That is less capacity.

The "extravagance and " hugeness" comes in the form of larger facilities required to offer state meets and similar event. And $millions.

My apologies. You are correct about addressing you individually. Two six lane pools (Lahser and Andover) replaced by one 12-lane pool is an equitable replacement. With consolidation of the HS swim teams, demand currently met with two pools will continue to be met. Additional demand will be created by adequate/state of the art facilities (Lahser and Andover can not even be considered adequate). This was the point of the original reply to this post. A 12-lane pool is reasonable given the consolidation of the 2 HS, not extravagant. Just as I feel most of the plan is reasonable. That is where we differ. I feel Plan A is reasonable and the best for our students.

Once both high schools are combined will there be available time? And wouldn't we have double the opportunities right now for club practices? And are you telling us that there are countless weekend meets that can't find venues already?

Andy, Just a fact check quesiton. Are the Lahser pools only 6 lanes each? I thought they were 8 or 10. I could be wrong on this, but would like confirmation.

And I guess it's OK to have the Varsity and JV all practicing at the same time in the same pool. I'm not sure. That's of course assuming that the new high school will have Varsity and JV. Something else I am not sure on.

Good question Chris. There are not double the opportunities for rentals as Lahser and Andover are substandard. Seaholm and Groves have new pools, but they were constructed smaller (8 lanes) to appease those opposing spending for athletics. Now their pools do not satisfy the requirements of many league and/or club meets do to limited deck space and odd configuration of lanes. There are not countless weekend meets searching for venues, but a pool built correctly and with input from local users would be a huge selling point. As for time, it is my understanding that there will only be 1 boys and 1 girls team for BHHS. There are no competitive JV swim teams in the state. Last - both Lahser and Andover are only 6 lane pools.

Andy, thinks for the clarification.

I merely was responding to Keith's comment. He wanted proof. I delivered on his request. I repeat. Let's all stick to the critical question, "what's best for our students and our community. Please let's stop the sign mania.

Linda, glass houses dear. I suspect you have more posts and complaints on here then anyone else. At least Mr. Charness and I can engage in an intellectual conversation and while we may not agree on everything, at least we respect each others opinions. Unlike you who castigate anyone who doesn’t agree with your position.

As I think about it Linda P this is an interesting response. Obviously, I have hit a nerve with you. Maybe you're the person stealing signs, and calling the township and wasting thier time.

But that's ridiculous, Mr. Fellin. Plan B IS on the ballot – simply vote no.

Perhaps you mean that you wish to continue with two separate small high schools. That is the alternative that is not on the ballot, and which is no longer available due to school board action to consolidate the schools regardless of the outcome of the bond vote.

But to say that Plan B is better is nonsense. It is clearly an inferior solution. To advocate it is cynical.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose the bond. But to do so by saying "Plan B is better" or by erecting straw men like "performing arts center" or "skywalk" is to admit that those legitimate opposition reasons are in fact insufficient.

I have clearly and repeatedly said that I support plan B. It is my compromise from my previous position of maintaining two high schools.

When you consider the big picture including the $48,000,000 budget problem and the educational benefits of a 9 th grade academy at a seperate location, plan B becomes the better plan for the students' education and for the community.

As I said earlier, I will explain this in more detail in a future post.

My apologies, I misunderstood. You agree that Plan B is an inferior plan to the renovated high school that the bond would support, but you feel we must accept it for other reasons, including the $48 million deficit. It had appeared that you thought that Plan B was somehow better in an absolute sense, the position that Mr. Roach apparently has come round to.

MDT, I believe that the best plan for students and the community is renovating both high schools and maintaining two 9-12 high schools. However, considering the $48,000,000 budget deficit, I believe that Plan B is a reasonable compromise and see less of a downside for educational outcomes.

Jan; I would be careful with that Red Herring comment. Cranbrook seems to do just fine with the 2 Gyms they have. Yes they have a very nice new pool, but they have do not have a diving area like Andover. They have the same number of lanes we do. Kingswood, just had a major update to the building after 50 years. I went to Brookside, and spent many summers at Cranbrook Day Camp. I can tell you that the Gyms they have, have not been altered in 40 years, The football field is the same, the track is the same. Simply having brand new buildings doesn't make the school better academically. The IA is in one of the oldest buildings we have in the district and they seem to do very well over there. As for the Andover theater, I was the there in 1980 a year after it was opened. The design will accomodate a Fly system, but at the time the district didn't have the money to spend on it. There is nothing wrong with the physical shell, when I left in 1983 that facility was in pristine shape. I returned a few years later and under Dr. Sima's reign the facility was completely trashed.

Cranbrook's pool has 10 lanes and two diving boards. They can run 8 lanes DURING diving. State of the art all the way around (and I won't even mention the retractable roof!!!!). The Oval at CK has been closed this year due to significant required renovation after years of patchwork maintenance. Boys lacrosse has been forced to play games on practice fields or away games. Nobody is saying that the building makes the education, but we are at a point where we need to act. Cranbrook acted when they needed to address their boys and girls lower schools. To the tune of some huge capital. Same for DCDS - both MS and an enormous fieldhouse with field turf for all sports. Co-curricular investment should definitely be considered along with academic/curriculum investment.

MR Reed, thank you for correcting me. Both my daughters swim in the speedsters programs there, and you would think with all the time I have spent sitting in that natatorium, I would know how many lanes there are. And you make some very good points, but almost all of those are no more than examples of a schools maintenance programs. CK isn't tearing down 1/2 the campus to building a new building. Yes they spend money to refurbish and update, just as you point out, and yes, they have spent some tons of cash, which I totally support. But let me point out something to you. Over the doors leading outside from the mens locker room hangs a picture of George Plimpton walking out the same doors wearing a Lions uniform heading to the practice field. Those doors, those stone floors haven't changed since Saarinen designed and built them.

R Gibson - great point about Saarinen. Had he designed Lahser and Andover I may agree with you. However, our two High Schools are as institutional as Saarinen's buildings are inspirational. Time to make a change

I agree Neal. But I find even the arguments they are now focusing on as ridiculous as the previous 'rounds'. Eye on the ball... Got it...

Chris - Since JS Roach has been and remains a staunch "no" voter it's not surprising that you would easily be "sold" by his take. What did the other team members have to say at the "report out"? My wife went on the Chicago trip with JS Roach and recalls that that team's clear consensus was that 9th grade academies are not the way to go. Indeed, the main reason the schools had that format was because they simply couldn't fit everyone in their existing high school building anymore.

Chris,
Please back up your comment that 9th graders "would have easier access to drugs and alcohol" with facts. You have 2 AHS grads. Was 9th grade a virtual candy store of drugs and alcohol for them? If you have actual facts in this regard, I hope you have shared those names, dates, incidents with AHS administration and our liaison police officer, John Hoffman. Bottom line, if you're looking for drugs or alcohol, they can be found in any high school, anywhere. And don't forget about the middle schools. Do you actually think students are only tempted in 9th grade? Look at statistics, Chris. Kids are messing with stuff earlier than ever before. Perhaps Plan B should be Plan Bubble. Each kid is sealed in a safe environment with no access to outside influence.
Plan B is not on the table. Chris. Parents are right to be worried about drugs and alcohol. Talk often with your kids and find out what's going on with them and around them. The answer to avoiding social temptations does not lie in isolation. It lies within strong family values and within a deep and wide high school curriculum that keeps students engaged.

Linda, you make me laugh. Mr. Gibson didn't accuse you of being a thief; he said that you MAY have stolen lawn signs. For that matter HE may have stolen them, or perhaps I did (I didn't, but you have no way of knowing that). The point, of course, is that ANYONE might have done so.

The same holds true with the ridiculous claim of Ms. Greenwell a few weeks back that someone "hacked" B2020's email account. No one "hacked" anything; someone simply created a free Gmail account using a username that happened to include "b2020" in it. Again, ANYONE can do this and send messages saying whatever they wish; it has absolutely nothing to do with "hacking" their official account.

Linda P, I thought it is perfectly clear that I was being sarcastic. I did not say you were stealing the signs. However, if you took my words in any other way then that I sincerely apologize. But, frankly I was very insulted and angry about your statement; "Mr. Charness and R Gibson is this all both of you do all day....... is post on the patch?". It suggests that Mr Charness and I are lazy and not working. I took great offense to that. Which you also posted in a public domain. Now, we can spend several days going back and forth about what is libel, and what isn't. Lets just both agree that maybe we both crossed the line and depart in peace. Ok?