Renfroe Expansion Options and Proposed Master Plan Now Online
Decatur Metro | October 23, 2014 | 12:16 pmRenfroe Middle School’s Expansion Proposed Master Plan is now online where you can view 3D and overhead site plans of the 4 expansion options. All four 3D versions are laid out below.
Check out the full presentation here, which includes cost breakdowns, individual option pros & cons, and a summary of option comparisons.
You can also view a traffic impact study of the proposed project here.
Option #1 – Total Cost: $31.4 million / Total Square Footage: 214, 092
Option #2 – Total Cost: $45 million / Total Square Footage: 218,155
Option #3 – Total Cost: $37.3 million / Total Square Footage: 223,750
Option #4 – Total Cost: $34.7 million / Total Square Footage: 207,328
All these options are so sad, I can barely comment. The source of my sadness is the exchange of green space (garden, field, trees) with impervious. Maybe they can design a roof top garden. I think we will regret outsourcing the Renfroe field to active living. Their fields are already in great demand.
Can you explain what “we will regret outsourcing the Renfroe field to active living” means?
Unless we are going to start educating our children in fields, I’m not sure what choice there is. I’d be interested in hearing your alternative idea.
How about building up? Were designs considered that add floors to the existing structure?
I agree with Mr. Norton – it will be a terrible loss to lose that field. (and I assume he mistyped the part about regretting the outsourcing to DAL?).
They do all build up–three stories instead of two. (An earlier community meeting had said that people were OK with going up in order to preserve greenspace.) You could consider going up to four. And the plans also try to increase parking–not because surface parking is awesome, but because with the expansion there is going to be a lot more staff too, and they’re trying to allow staff to park at the school.
Someone can correct me on this – but I believe adequate parking is required for the teachers/staff (reducing parking space is not an option).
But I thought that the progressive vision is to make it harder, not easier, to commute by car. If the city simply eliminated parking for teachers, they’d be all but forced onto Marta. And that’s great, because the city has a Marta stop just a short walk from Renfroe. Think of it as the next evolution of road diets — no need to incur the expense of road re-configuration when you can simply eliminate parking.
again someone correct me if I am wrong about this – but I believe it is a state requirement to have a specific number of parking spaces based on the amount of teachers/staff. CSD nor the city have any say over it ๐
There are parking regs but they’re local, not state. The city has total control over them and the ZBA could, conceivably, relax them conditionally, though they’re already fairly modest by conventional standards. The point is that, yes, we have regs but they’re not a state mandate.
Ah well, then it seems as though you have a perfect test case here, no? Eliminate parking and: improve pedestrian safety around schools, encourage mass transit and/or alternative commuting by CSD employees, reduce CO2 emissions, and preserve green space. It’s perfect. Will Decatur do it?
You’ve left out the “Ire of MAK,” which would be the prevailing determinant. Parking reductions have little impact unilaterally and need to be implemented in ways that create alternatives to handle the mechanics of people getting from one place to another. With hundreds of spaces of on-street parking within a couple blocks of RMS, teachers and administrators would continue to drive. They’d just make everyone nuts in the process.
But you’re thinking subversively, so naturally I like it.
The biggest way to positively impact traffic congestion and environmental conditions would be to let the staff keep as many parking spaces as they need and establish a no-drive radius around the school for parents.
Er . . . what about the large number of faculty and staff who live outside of Decatur? Many of them live miles from the school and can’t commute by public transport. “Progressive vision” or not, Decatur sits squarely in the middle of the real world, and our region of that world was built around the automobile. Wishing otherwise won’t make it so.
Clarification. By outsourcing I meant if there will no longer be a field so we will have to use DAL fields for soccer, lacrosse, ultimate, gardening, pickup games, etc. I do like the idea of a roof top garden. Besides going up, not many alternatives.
It’s like tetris. With buildings.
Option 4 will keep some playable field space for little ones as I understand it. That said, Yes this will put us into an even bigger lack of field space in Decatur. We need more. I don’t know if there is an active strategy to identify and develop more field and green space.
At the comment section of the RMS meeting there was some discussion of how to use the roof.
I think there was a good balance of adding capacity while trying to respect greenery and trees and some outdoor space. They designers truly did hear that desire. But yes this is a loss.
I fear that the DHS garden will also literally by paved to put up a parking lot. I did think the architects and planners were doing a good and thoughtful job. And I don’t usually feel that when I go to meetings. That said…. this issues and real dynamic solutions are going to require more than the school system alone. For example better pedestrian access between Renfroe and DHS would help make the parking spaces between the two schools be more useful to each, and the traffic flow for drop off and pick up etc. But as I understand it, true pedestrian improvement involving these areas is super complex.
“I donโt know if there is an active strategy to identify and develop more field and green space.”
United Methodist Children’s Home is on the annexation list. It has lots of open space – maybe the city could buy some for fields/parks/gardens
As a COD taxpayer, I’m thinking the best option would be the one that gave the most square footage for the dollar–which looks like Opt. #3. As for greenspace, why can’t the schools look at a way to utilize some roof space to put it there? Since surface area is already at a premium, seems to me CSD needs to start thinking outside the box on this issue.
I’m with you on the most sq feet per dollar being the best choice.
As far as greenspace on the roof (and I am not an expert on it), I think it would actually drive up construction costs considerably. Dirt is quite heavy, and if you are already adding 1-2 stories, you probably will have significant costs in putting in additional footers to support the load.
Court space could go on a rooftop, allowing for the current ground level court space to instead be green space.
It appears that the planning is for a post-annexation student population that includes all of the area’s in the city’s annexation plan. If the big annexation actually happens, does it not make sense to consider building a second middle school in the NE area up by Suburban Plaza? That would also help to address the traffic issue – they mention the potential for a much smaller percentage of walkers if the city grows leading to much more congestion at Renfroe.
Raise the Roof so that 10,000 kids can come to school. Go four stories up. Let it tower over the Neighborhood.
I like Option 4 the best. Keep some green space, good natural light, middle cost, keeps the grades separated. It is amazing how much bigger some of the 8th graders are than the 6th graders. Keeping them separate is a good idea. For those that were able to attend, did they discuss the plan to have extra rooms for the 4/5 at the middle school? That was in the plans they showed last year although it was hidden in the small text.
I didn’t hear about that at all. I liked #4. I don’t think the courtyard would be utilized by kids who wouldn’t be allowed to cross between classes, would cause some safety issues with low visibility from the street during the weekends and would probably less easy to utilize for games, PE etc than a back field. #4 has the cafeteria opening up to the back field and I think that could be nice. It also has the media center on the ground floor (unlike #3) and I think that feels better. It also has better organization of classes, and site lines for crowd management.
What I don’t love is smaller classroom squarefoot. In all of these the new classrooms are 660 square foot which is above the DOE minimum standard but below the current classroom size and below the current usual standard. Note that the designs that keep some of the old building means that some of the current classrooms (750 square feet I think) reman. Which is a plus as far as I’m concerned. I’d like for the planners to present options that include more spacious classrooms. I don’t think we should build to just the minimum.
What’s also missing is any strategic look at what it means for the system to grow to this size. I don’t know how much is due to internal growth vs annexation. If the Renfroe is 2300 what does that mean for the 4/5, I don’t think the architects can be expected to deliver this. I’m hopeful that in future we might hear more about the role of annexation, what that means for the entire system.
Tunnel under the tracks! PE next year involves shovels for everyone!
You know, when folks talk about the CSX right of way and how they have almost eminent domain and are impossible to work with, I always wonder what would happen if local folks just quickly built something over or under the tracks, a pedestrian bridge or pedestrian tunnel. Would CSX even notice?
now that’s a great idea.
I would agree that of the proposed options, #4 is the best one. However, there is a lot to be desired with #4:
1. 2013 Resolution – After the previous Master Plan debacle, the Board of Education passed a resolution stating that the majority of buildings would be located along College Avenue. All of the options clearly violate Board policy. Why weren’t any options shown that include a 3- or 4-story building along College Avenue?
2. Planning for annexation โ all of the plans assume annexation will occur. There was some discussion of building in phases, but it wasn’t clear how the plans (both buildings and parking) would be scaled back if annexation doesn’t happen.
3. Keeping the old gym – In what was assumed to be a temporary measure; earlier this year the old gym was converted to classrooms. Now the old gym is being kept in all of the new plans and is preventing any expansion toward the current garden space. The architects did discuss that state funds were used and they would have to pay it back, but it will stick out like a sore thumb next to the new buildings. They would have been better off using trailers.
4. Open space next to new gym – In plans 1-3, there are new buildings next to the new gym, but for #4 they all of the sudden decided that natural light was needed in the new gym. The space between the new gym and the north parking lot is the least objectionable place to build on the whole property (and it’s on the north side of the new gym, so there will be minimal loss of light).
5. Traffic study – there are several assumptions that are very suspicious, including the proposed number of cars and buses. They are predicting that the car drop-offs will increase from 200 to 650, which will require a 13,000 foot queuing distance (over 2 miles). However, the new options donโt really address a solution to the assumed 2-mile backup. Where are the 16 proposed buses going to be stored at night?
Every design is contorted to keep the old gym. I guess this explains it? There’s got to be a better way … I am curious to know if they considered other options that didn’t keep this structure, and if not (as you allude to), why not.
And traffic? At least they admit a 13000 foot queuing distance ๐ Pickup and dropoff is already painful (our Renfroe kid walks, but we dread that occasional dropoff need, like a school project or class supplies, as well as needs for after-school pickup/shuttle). Any design that could discourage pickup/dropoff and improve the efficiency of the process for those who do would make everyone (College Ave commuters, parents) happy, and not just those who live in MAK.
where am i, Tokyo?
No, just the city with greatest population density in Georgia.
i want my bento box and sleeping pod
all this talk of building up is nice, but unless the existing structures were originally developed with that plan in mind, the likelihood of adding additional floors may well be economically unfeasible. if the foundations and structural columns weren’t built to handle the additional floors, it will be more expensive to do that than it will just to tear it down and start over. economic realities stink sometimes…
How about making Renfroe an elementary school and making Westchester the new middle school?
I was at the last meeting where these plans were introduced. I have a few concerns about the plans and the process.
1. The architects are doing a good job with what they were tasked to do BUT I think we are too tied down by previous bad decisions like the “old gym” and placement of the new gym. The amount of money that would have to be returned to the Board of Education if we tear down the newly improved “old gym” is $800,000. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the renovations and it is a very poor use of that valuable space.
2. Building up on the existing school would force them to have the same despised narrow corridors in the added space. The idea of four stories was dismissed as too imposing. I would have liked to have seen plans with both of these options because I don’t know that anyone realized the tradeoffs that would be required. I think that the desire for greenspace and natural light may trump some previously stated preferences.
3. We should all remember that the RMS remodel is part of a much larger “Master Plan” that I don’t think has been revealed in full. We should have all the information in front of us instead of being asked to approve it a piece at a time.
4. The City holds a lot of power in this and does not seem to be taking a part in the process at all. The school board and the community are at their mercy. They need to be accountable for their role in both adding to (annexing) and solving (funding) these problems.
5. We can’t build fast enough, smart enough and affordably enough to meet the exploding enrollment while maintaining the quality of education we are working so hard for. Let’s have a serious discussion about creative options for both the long and short term.
This is going to be a long and difficult process. At the heart of the matter is the desire to provide the best education that we can for our children. I hope the citizens, schools, school board and city council can all work together to find the best way forward.
“The City holds a lot of power in this and does not seem to be taking a part in the process at all. The school board and the community are at their mercy. They need to be accountable for their role in both adding to (annexing) and solving (funding) these problems.”
This is the consensus opinion, and I agree with it. As citizens and parents, its time for us to do something to improve communication between the city government and the school district leadership. I am sincerely looking for suggestions. Can we petition the city to stop annexations? Schools and parents need some support from the city!
The traffic report is rather thorough. The most interesting stat to me:
45% of RMS kids walk or bike.
27% ride the bus.
28% are driven.
28%. Parents – why? I can get some reasons (e.g., after school sports), but this number seems absurdly high given the size of Decatur and availability of the bus.
(My kids know the reaction to expect when asked to be driven to school ๐
I can’t agree more with questioning parents why all the driving kids to school? Yes, some of the bus rides are long, but that is just part of being a community. I suspect the bus ride would be a bit shorter if there weren’t all the chauffeur parents on the road. Is at least some of this driving drop off of the carpool variety?
Tuition students (paying and complementary) account for some of the drop-offs. Not sure of that % but definitely not 28%.