The Committee to Rebuild Wakefield supports a strong and consistent Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the schools. Therefore we support the proposed funding in 2008 for the final phase of Yorktown High School, design at Wakefield and capital needs at the Career Center. We encourage all community members to educate themselves on the bond and hopefully vote for it on November 4!
This link provides information on all four of the Arlington County 2008 Bond Referenda.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Milestone Reached, Roadblock Not Addressed
The School Board took long-awaited action on Thursday, 10/2/08, to approve the conceptual design for Wakefield High School. This is a positive step forward for the project.
What does it mean?
The high-level, conceptual design phase is complete. This phase addressed issues such as the scale and relationships among the components of the project. The project can now move to schematic design, where the architects will explore alternative designs and define significant levels of detail for those designs. The community can expect to see illustrations to help visualize the project and learn more specifics about the site features and functions.
Why is it important?
The conceptual design process became protracted and problematic. It hit roadblocks over issues inappropriate for this early phase such as sidewalk setbacks and exterior design elements. While these issues are significant, they were not appropriate for the concept phase. This was reinforced by the County architectural consultant, Roger Lewis, at the County-School Board joint work session last month. (Read about the County-School Boards’ joint work session)
Significant Progress Points
1. A Common Understanding - The Wakefield project was at risk of stalling before it started. Committees were struggling over details that could not be fully addressed in the concept phase. These issues morphed into turf wars. With community vigilance and hard work by the APS staff, the School Board was able to bring the focus back to the high-level concept. It was the right move. All School and County parties can tackle specific concerns from a central starting point.
2. Accountability and Timelines – Bill O’Connor of APS staff heads up the Wakefield project. He brings much building experience – both in a School Board and Municipal environment – to the table. At the School Board meeting, Mr. O’Connor demonstrated a clear commitment to specific deliverables and milestones for Schematic Design and beyond. He also ensured a commitment to open communication among Boards, Committees and the Community. These are all issues our Community has been pushing for since last Spring. (See new project timelines)
3. Executive Sponsorship – To move ahead effectively the reconstruction project requires strong support and leadership from the School Board. The concept design was approved 5-0.
Unaddressed Issue
The outstanding issue remains the 2-committee process. The architect is still in the position of presenting to two committees who represent the Schools and the County. The architect takes feedback and direction from both committees. This is where the roadblocks arose the conceptual design got off track. (Read about the dueling committee process that hampered the project throughout 2008).
While the intent to engage County feedback on issues like zoning earlier in the project is reasonable and hopefully will help avoid late-term delays and cost overruns, it hasn’t worked. The architects literally bounced back and forth between committees, and received conflicting and inconsistent direction.
This basic issue of decision making must be addressed.
So who should be in charge? The Schools own and manages the project – that is public record. The County controls permits and issues bonds. Obviously coordination and collaboration are necessary.
Possible Solution
The PFRC process in new to APS projects. It's been a rocky start, and it will be a part of the project moving forward. The County Board and staff must take the time to clearly define the Operating Guidelines of its committee, the PFRC. The draft guidelines from September 2007 have not been revisited within the year timeline the draft itself specifies. Nor do the guidelines effectively address how, when and where the PFRC engages in an APS project. Wakefield has been the guinea pig of this process, which has been painful. But there is learning to be had and applied moving ahead -- if the County takes the time to do it. The goal needs to be a functional, sustainable school building that supports the needs of the school and the community delivered in a timely fashion without wasting resources. The PFRC process needs to be better aligned to support that goal.
We encourage Community members to communicate with the County Manager’s office and the County Board, encouraging them to provide more clear direction for the PFRC.
What does it mean?
The high-level, conceptual design phase is complete. This phase addressed issues such as the scale and relationships among the components of the project. The project can now move to schematic design, where the architects will explore alternative designs and define significant levels of detail for those designs. The community can expect to see illustrations to help visualize the project and learn more specifics about the site features and functions.
Why is it important?
The conceptual design process became protracted and problematic. It hit roadblocks over issues inappropriate for this early phase such as sidewalk setbacks and exterior design elements. While these issues are significant, they were not appropriate for the concept phase. This was reinforced by the County architectural consultant, Roger Lewis, at the County-School Board joint work session last month. (Read about the County-School Boards’ joint work session)
Significant Progress Points
1. A Common Understanding - The Wakefield project was at risk of stalling before it started. Committees were struggling over details that could not be fully addressed in the concept phase. These issues morphed into turf wars. With community vigilance and hard work by the APS staff, the School Board was able to bring the focus back to the high-level concept. It was the right move. All School and County parties can tackle specific concerns from a central starting point.
2. Accountability and Timelines – Bill O’Connor of APS staff heads up the Wakefield project. He brings much building experience – both in a School Board and Municipal environment – to the table. At the School Board meeting, Mr. O’Connor demonstrated a clear commitment to specific deliverables and milestones for Schematic Design and beyond. He also ensured a commitment to open communication among Boards, Committees and the Community. These are all issues our Community has been pushing for since last Spring. (See new project timelines)
3. Executive Sponsorship – To move ahead effectively the reconstruction project requires strong support and leadership from the School Board. The concept design was approved 5-0.
Two School Board members demonstrated strong support. Libby Garvey and Abby Raphael are focusing on accountability, budget and milestones that can address project risk and demonstrate clear, forward progress.
Unaddressed Issue
The outstanding issue remains the 2-committee process. The architect is still in the position of presenting to two committees who represent the Schools and the County. The architect takes feedback and direction from both committees. This is where the roadblocks arose the conceptual design got off track. (Read about the dueling committee process that hampered the project throughout 2008).
While the intent to engage County feedback on issues like zoning earlier in the project is reasonable and hopefully will help avoid late-term delays and cost overruns, it hasn’t worked. The architects literally bounced back and forth between committees, and received conflicting and inconsistent direction.
This basic issue of decision making must be addressed.
So who should be in charge? The Schools own and manages the project – that is public record. The County controls permits and issues bonds. Obviously coordination and collaboration are necessary.
Possible Solution
The PFRC process in new to APS projects. It's been a rocky start, and it will be a part of the project moving forward. The County Board and staff must take the time to clearly define the Operating Guidelines of its committee, the PFRC. The draft guidelines from September 2007 have not been revisited within the year timeline the draft itself specifies. Nor do the guidelines effectively address how, when and where the PFRC engages in an APS project. Wakefield has been the guinea pig of this process, which has been painful. But there is learning to be had and applied moving ahead -- if the County takes the time to do it. The goal needs to be a functional, sustainable school building that supports the needs of the school and the community delivered in a timely fashion without wasting resources. The PFRC process needs to be better aligned to support that goal.
We encourage Community members to communicate with the County Manager’s office and the County Board, encouraging them to provide more clear direction for the PFRC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)