Where will the Janney kids learn (and play) while this project is under construction?
In contemplating a stand-alone school modernization project, DCPS has always assumed that Janney students could “swing in place” – i.e. remain on campus – while their new facilities are being constructed. Under that scenario, this was a realistic assumption. Because the new classroom facilities will be approximately as large as the main building currently is, once they are completed, the school could move into them as the old building is modernized. Demountables would, no doubt, have to be moved around at various stages of construction (with a resultant temporary loss of play space), but basically the current level of overcrowding could be maintained throughout the renovation process. Moreover, because the sole objective of the project would be to better meet the school’s facilities needs, construction would, presumably, be scheduled to minimize disruption to the students’ education rather than to further other goals.
Though DCPS has yet to acknowledge it, the “swing in place” approach becomes much less viable (or attractive) if Janney is to be modernized as part of a public-private venture incorporating the library and a large multifamily residential building. The scale and duration of construction changes dramatically. Significant excavation will be required. Less land will be available for relocating classrooms and outdoor playspaces. And a variety of stakeholders with competing interests will have a say in what gets done where, when, and how.
When asked about this issue back in March at a public meeting sponsored by ANC 3E, LCOR (the developer Fenty wishes to select for this project) indicated that they would prefer to have Janney students off campus during construction. That approach, which they used for the Oyster PPP, would be faster, cheaper, and safer. LCOR indicated that if the kids were to be kept on campus, it would extend the length of the construction phase by at least another year and that, while they would work hard to minimize disruption to the school, the learning environment would inevitably be less than optimal. The kids’ safety could certainly be ensured, but doing so would shrink the space available on campus for their use even further.
To get a sense of the logistics involved, click on the "ANC 3E's Website" link under the Documents heading to your right (you may have to scroll up to see it). Find the Janney School/LCOR document and print out pages 5-7 and 10. You might also want to print out Appendix A and B (1 page each) from the RFP; scroll down to find them under "2007." Now start imagining the construction sites at various stages of the process. (Likely order: (1) underground garage and foundation for mixed-use building, (2) library/apartment building, (3) new school building(s), (4) modernization of old building (some work could be done earlier during summer months when the rooms are not in use), (5) removal of demountables, reconstruction of playgrounds and fields.) What follows is my attempt to work through the logistics. During the RFP revision process, the ANC specifically asked for this planning to be done and included with the proposals, but DMPED ignored that request. So we're stuck figuring it out ourselves as best we can. Email me (smithhemb@aol.com) if you come up with something better than/different from the scenarios that follow.
The other thing that needs to be figured out is how long each phase will last. Judging from recent local experience on projects of comparable size, the first phase is probably about 4-6 months and the second phase is more like 2 years. I'm guessing that phases 3, 4, and 5 will take place over the course of two school years-- that's what DCPS's budgeting seems to assume for a stand-alone rebuild and that’s what Oyster took. Plus, it's hard to believe it could be accomplished in one, especially with the kids on site (which means that the renovations to the older building and new construction can't proceed simultaneously because, during the school year, one part must be available for use while work proceeds on the other part). The outstanding question is to what extent phases 2 and 3 can be overlapped. If they can't, we're probably looking at at least 4 years of construction on site. If they can, it could be closer to 3 years. (This is real time -- not academic years. 36 months could span 4 school years)
The edge of the excavation for the garage will be about 15 feet from the Wisconsin Avenue side of Janney’s main building and it will run along that edge of campus from the sidewalk at Albemarle Street to a point about 20 feet short of the Saint Ann’s alley. Remember that construction sites need access roads (and quite long ones to lower trucks into deep holes). At this stage, unless the alley from Yuma can be used (and it looks too narrow for construction vehicles), it would seem as if 42nd Street would be the only way to route vehicles into the site. (At a later stage, access might be from Albemarle, using the new driveway for the garage.) So imagine a curb cut on 42nd near the southern edge of the playground, traversing campus. Factor in safety perimeters as well. And construction sites typically also need areas for staging materials, for storing equipment, and for onsite office space for construction managers. None of this can go on the library land because it’s a big hole in the ground at this stage and the lot will be 100% occupied by the library/residential building once the hole is covered.
In this first stage, Janney’s former soccer field is also a big hole, so nothing can be relocated there either. Later on, most of it will be covered by an apartment building and 20’ of the 40’ between the school and that building will be devoted to a road running down the middle of this strip of land. The 10' margin on the school's side of that road will probably be useless -- it's too narrow for a demountable and too close to traffic for a playground. Perhaps some of the garage space can be used for construction materials storage at this stage (i.e. during the (2 year?) period in which the library/residential building is being constructed.)
Once the library/residential building is finished and work begins in earnest on the new school building, the entire construction operation will be housed on Janney’s now-reduced campus. The library and residences will be in active use and they consume all of the library’s land as well as what used to be the school's soccer field and part of the teacher's parking lot. The garage will also be in use – which means teacher parking can be relocated there, but construction materials probably can’t be stored in that location any more.
While the new school building is under construction, the existing demountables will still be in use, but at least one will have to be moved out of the path of the new building. At this stage there will be a demolition project (the old gym/cafeteria addition will be removed) and perhaps a reconstruction project (patching the hole its removal leaves in the center of the school's southern wall), followed by two construction sites -- one 40' from (and parallel to) the school's SW quadrant and another perpendicular to and abutting the school's southeast quadrant.
At this stage, the blacktop area is essentially eliminated (some of it will be reclaimed post-construction) and the kids will probably be limited to the playground space on the 42nd street side of campus (assuming that construction vehicles can be routed through Albemarle), which may have to house the relocated demountable as well (although it seems likely that construction related attrition will drive out enough students that maybe that demountable can be eliminated). Because the new wing extends at least 40' beyond the old building on the west side, some of that playground space will be cut into and, for safety reasons, more of it may be temporarily off-limits to students. Perhaps some additional play space at the southern edge of the campus (i.e. the future location of the playing field) can remain accessible during this phase.
Janney's SIT has said its support for the PPP is contingent upon the kids staying on campus during construction. The additional question that needs to be asked at this point is not "at what cost and for how long?" I'd be really hesitant to have my kid spending half of elementary school in a cramped construction zone. And for what? To end up with a campus where the athletic facilities have been cut in half to make way for an apartment building. The rush to do it quicker (rather than to do it better) seems really short-sighted when it means that the process is much more disruptive and the outcome is less appealing. At the rate, we're going, maybe next year's PreK and K classes will still be on campus to enjoy the new buildings, but at the cost of spending most of their elementary school years under really substandard conditions. The older kids get the pain without the gain. And the newcomers are spared the pain, but their kids will have lost 2/3 of an acre of athletic facilities. Who benefits from this approach?
