VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 84 POSTED ON: 1/30/2013
ITEM 3 DATE: 2010 January 08 TO: Committee II – Planning & Facilities FROM: NCLD Steering Committee RE: General Gordon Elementary NCLD Space Program Report BACKGROUND The Neighbourhood Centre for Learning and Development (NCLD) consultation process was announced by the Ministry of Education in September 2008 for Queen Mary Elementary, General Gordon Elementary and Lord Strathcona Elementary. NCLD programming areas are intended to be supplemental to core school programming needs and create opportunities for greater community access when school programs do not require the facilities. The aim is to enhance the delivery of kindergarten to grade-seven instruction by providing additional spaces that support student music, art, performance and Late French Immersion programs. The enhanced school will also support the delivery of community services such as early learning programs, out-of school child-care programs, meeting rooms for non-profit organizations, literacy programs, family resource and immigration services, and multi- purpose space for community arts and sports programs. An NCLD Steering Committee, co-chaired by the Assistant Deputy Minister and the Superintendent was established in December 2008. The Steering Committee includes ministry and district staff and was entrusted with overseeing and providing direction to the consulting team. In January 2009, Brook and Associates Inc. were contracted to develop the work plan and manage the NCLD consultation process. In addition to administering various phases of the consultation process, the final deliverable was to develop a draft conceptual program and operational model for each school site that would be suitable for establishing terms of reference for future architectural project definition and optimal design solution studies. Brook and Associates have prepared a summary report titled General Gordon NCLD Space Program Report that outlines a proposed conceptual program and provides recommendations for the Gordon Elementary NCLD study (Attachment A). The delivery of this report signifies the end of the consultation process undertaken by Brook and Associates for this school site. Prepared by: C. Sidjak 1 P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2010 Reports\2010-01 Jan 19\zItem 3 - Gordon NCLD Study Recommendations.doc CONSULTATION PROCESS The Gordon Elementary Representative Team (RT) was established that included parent, community resident, school staff and school administrative representatives. The RT was instrumental in providing direct feedback and direction in coordinating each step of the consultation process. A key step in the process involved a day long visioning workshop held in March 2009 with a larger group of student, parent, school staff and interested partner agency participants. The outcomes of this event were compiled in a report on the school community vision and served as the basis for developing a proposed conceptual area program for the Gordon Elementary NCLD school facility. The Gordon RT provided input into the preparation of this report. Over the summer period, The Colborne Architectural Group assessed the visioning outcomes and, working with Brook and Associates, developed conceptual area allocations for each NCLD school function. This base information was used in a preliminary analysis of the overall building footprint in relation to existing site conditions and seismic mitigation concepts involving full upgrade of existing buildings, partial replacement / partial upgrade and full replacement of existing buildings. Overall, the proposed program required to deliver the array of core school and community based programming envisioned for Gordon Elementary represents a combined area allocation of 4,263 m2 (Core School 3,600 m2 + 663 m2 NCLD area top-up). The NCLD area allocation represents a top-up of approximately 18% above Ministry standards for school design. This conceptual design work formed a key component of the material that was presented at a public open house held at Gordon Elementary on November 19th, 2009. Invitations to surrounding households were mailed out. The open house display boards were also posted on the VSB website. Details of the proposed space program are described in the Brook report. Brook and Associates compiled and assessed the feedback received from the open house consultation process, as documented in Attachment A. It should be noted that parent and community resident participants on the Gordon RT were concerned about some of the recommendations contained in the Brook report regarding the proposed conceptual building area required to deliver the proposed core school and NCLD programming and issues related to future processes for determining the design solution related to building heritage value and sustainability issues. At the Gordon RT meetings, it was explained that the proposed NCLD conceptual building area is comparable to other projects approved by the Ministry. In addition, the issues of heritage retention and sustainability would be addressed in the next stage of the process when the proposed space program is utilized as a “template” to investigate seismic mitigation options (full upgrade, partial replacement / partial upgrade, full replacement). Prepared by: C. Sidjak 2 P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2010 Reports\2010-01 Jan 19\zItem 3 - Gordon NCLD Study Recommendations.doc The NCLD Steering Committee has considered the feedback from the Gordon RT and the open house consultation process. The Steering Committee is confident that the proposed conceptual area allocation would deliver an excellent school facility (whatever design solution is ultimately determined) with facilities that meet or exceed elementary school projects that are currently in design or construction within the district. The NCLD Steering Committee is supportive of the recommendations provided by Brook and Associates in the General Gordon NCLD Space Program Report and believes that this project should advance to the next phase of planning - Project Definition of an Optimal Design Solution. In consideration of the concerns expressed by Gordon RT parent and community resident participants, the NCLD Steering Committee also requested that the Committee II meeting be rescheduled so that the Brook report could be posted on the VSB website on January 8th and provide ample time for the school community to review the report prior to Committee II on January 19th, 2010. NEXT STEPS The proposed conceptual space program, and the feedback generated through the consultation process, would be utilized by a design team as the “template” to investigate seismic mitigation options (full upgrade, partial replacement / partial upgrade, full replacement). It should also be noted that the optimal design solution will include consideration of 21st century educational school design principles, seismic safety, comprehensive building audit / life cycle analysis, operational costs, heritage and sustainability. Sustainability assessment criteria will include assessment of construction material waste handling, embodied energy in materials, long term energy consumption and green house gas emissions. If the proposed conceptual space program is endorsed, it would form a key component in issuing a request for architectural design services proposal call. Following the selection of a prime consultant, work would begin on the project definition and assessment process leading to the identification of an optimal design solution. The general intent is to proceed with this work in winter / spring 2010 so that the school district would be in a position to request finalization of a capital project agreement with the Ministry of Education by June 2010. There will be future opportunities for school and community input during the next phase of assessment, in accordance with the integrated design and consultative process adopted by the Board of Education in March 2009. It should also be noted that the general project timeline outlined in this report is subject to revision and would be confirmed when a prime consultant is selected for this project. Brook and Associates administered similar NCLD consultation processes for Queen Mary Elementary and Lord Strathcona Elementary. The Queen Mary Elementary NCLD conceptual space program was presented to Committee II on December 8th 2009 and received Board approval. The Lord Strathcona NCLD report is being presented to Committee II on January 19th, 2010. Prepared by: C. Sidjak 3 P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2010 Reports\2010-01 Jan 19\zItem 3 - Gordon NCLD Study Recommendations.doc RECOMMENDATION The delivery of General Gordon NCLD Space Program Report signifies the end of the consultation process undertaken by Brook and Associates for this school site. The NCLD Steering Committee is recommending endorsement of the proposed conceptual program and recommendations as outlined in the report. As referenced, the report describes a proposed conceptual program with a combined area allocation of 4,263 m2. The conceptual program would form a key component in issuing a request for architectural design services proposal call early in 2010 and permit the General Gordon NCLD seismic mitigation project to advance to the next phase of planning - project definition of an optimal design solution. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT that the Board of Trustees endorse the proposed conceptual program and recommendations presented in the General Gordon NCLD Space Program Report prepared by Brook and Associates and authorize staff to proceed to project definition of an optimal design solution. Attachment Prepared by: C. Sidjak 4 P:\COMMITTEE II\Reports\2010 Reports\2010-01 Jan 19\zItem 3 - Gordon NCLD Study Recommendations.doc SUMMARY REPORT To: NCLD Steering Committee Date: December 17, 2009 Project: Neighbourhood Centres for Learning and Project No.: 0866 Development (NCLD) From: Brook + Associates Inc. Pages: 16 + Attachments Re: General Gordon NCLD Space Program Report Introduction Brook + Associates is pleased to provide the following report for the General Gordon Neighbourhood Centre of Learning and Development (NCLD) space program. The report includes: 1. Background about the NCLD project; 2. An overview of key factors contributing to the development of the General Gordon NCLD program; 3. The General Gordon NCLD program and space allocation proposal; 4. A summary of the General Gordon public open house event; 5. A summary of the Open House feedback; and 6. Conclusions and recommendations. Brook + Associates role throughout this process has been to define and facilitate the public consultation at the three schools participating in the NCLD project. With respect to the General Gordon Elementary School, this has included facilitating eight (8) meetings with the General Gordon Elementary School, facilitating the school’s Vision Session, and hosting a community-wide Open House. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the process undertaken to develop the General Gordon NCLD, to provide an overview of the community’s feedback provided at the Open House, and to provide recommendations to the Steering Committee about how to move the process to the next stage in the Vancouver School Board’s facility planning process. 1. Background about the NCLD Project The Ministry of Education announced the NCLD Project to optimize use of school facilities by the community as part of the Provincial Seismic Mitigation Program. In January 2009, a Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Education and the Vancouver School Board was formed to guide the overall project and process for the three elementary schools chosen for this project (General Gordon, Queen Mary and Lord Strathcona) in the Vancouver School District. Representative Teams (RT) were formed at each of the three schools in consultation with a school’s administration and staff. The intent of the RT is a smaller working group that is representative of the school community, provides feedback on the project, and input to define the school’s NCLD program. RT composition varies at each school; General Gordon’s RT includes representation from school administration, community members General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 2 of 17 from the surrounding neighbourhood, school staff and the Parent Advisory Council. In March, an initial group of stakeholders, who either had an existing role at the school, or were envisioned to provide services or programs at one of the three schools, participated in an Agency Working Session. The figure above provides an overview of the general types of services envisioned being provided by agencies at NCLD schools. Stakeholders were asked to consider their participation at one, both or all of the schools; follow-up calls, meetings and discussions were held to determine the extent of an agency’s involvement. Over the course of the project, additional stakeholders were identified through a snowball process (i.e., word of mouth, request from an RT, research) and contacted to consider and confirm their participation in the NCLD project. An NCLD vision and four guiding principles were defined and revised throughout the process, and along with the Agency Working Session information, provided an important foundation for the General Gordon NCLD space allocation proposal. 2. An overview of key factors contributing to the development of the General Gordon NCLD Program The General Gordon NCLD program development process started by looking at what existed at the school and in the community, and integrated key information from the agency feedback, a school visioning session and direction from the Steering Committee to develop the NCLD program and space allocation proposal. The following sub-sections provide an overview of key factors which helped define the General Gordon NCLD program and space allocation proposal, specifically: • input provided during the school’s visioning process; • potential NCLD partners’ space needs; • Ministry’s Area Standards; and • additional factors contributing to the development of the General Gordon NCLD program. Vision Session The visioning session for General Gordon Elementary was held on April 23, 2009 and brought the school community together with local and provincial agencies to develop a vision for the General Gordon NCLD. This input provided an important launching pad for further developing the space proposal. The results of the school’s vision session have been documented in a Vision Booklet (available under separate cover). Potential Partner Agencies To meet the Vision of the NCLD, the Ministry of Education confirmed1 that they will provide additional space, above and beyond the Ministry standards allotted for a school’s projected enrolment, as part of the capital project to accommodate basic services provided by any provincial and local agencies as part of the future NCLD at General Gordon. Provincial and local agencies are expected to provide operational funding to support the services delivered as part of the NCLD, and these agencies/partners are also encouraged to contribute capital funding, where possible, to provide enhanced facilities delivering community services. Thirty two (32) stakeholder agencies were initially contacted with a request for expressions of interest letter and twenty-one (21) participated in the Agency Working Session on March 12, 2009. Ten (10) agencies identified an interest to participate in the General Gordon school vision session and seven (7) (plus three existing) have been confirmed as potential partners who could provide expanded programming and services at the school. 1E-mail Correspondence from the Ministry (dated May 13, 2009) confirmed that local and provincial agencies are also encouraged to contribute capital funding, where possible. General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 3 of 17 The services that the agencies have identified to support the NCLD include Childcare, Community Services, Family Support, Learning Connections, Health Connections and Settlement Services. Three are existing agencies that provide childcare services, pre-school and children’s sports activities (respectively) at the school and the remaining seven have expressed a desire to participate in some capacity in the future. - Ivy Montessori School - Vancouver Parks Board - Jericho Kids Club - Vancouver Coastal Health - MoreSports - West Coast Childcare Resource Centre - Kits Neighbourhood House - West Side Family Place - Kitsilano Daycare - MOSAIC Confirmed potential partners were contacted via telephone and asked to fill in an Agency Space and Service Needs analysis form. The submitted information has been considered in the development of the NCLD program and space allocation at General Gordon. An overview of the agencies consulted and the programs and services of the confirmed potential partners are provided in the Open House materials (see appendices). The Ministry’s Area Standards The current enrolment at General Gordon is approximately 415 students. Nominal capacity is used to inform the space allocation for the General Gordon school, which is defined as 400 + 40K. Early Learning is new additional space that is reserved for future Ministry programs. According to Ministry of Education Area Standards, this would result in a core school program of 3,600 m2. General Gordon School Capacity & Core School Area School Capacity 40 Full-day Kindergarten (2 classrooms) 400 Grade 1 – 7 (16 classrooms) Early Learning (2 classrooms) The Core School Area would total approximately 3,600 m2 Additional Factors Contributing to the Development of the Proposed General Gordon NCLD Program Additional factors have guided the development of the General Gordon NCLD proposed program; specifically factors relating to agency requests to participate and an acceptable range for the NCLD space allocation proposal. When soliciting agency interest in the General Gordon NCLD, three childcare operators expressed an interest to participate; two existing - Ivy Montessori and Jericho Kids Club (JKC), and one new, the Kitsilano Daycare. Ivy Montessori operates out of a separate building on site. JKC operates within the General Gordon Elementary School with a license for 60 child care spots. Kitsilano Daycare holds a license for 25 child care spots at the Kits Neighbourhood House. Both JKC and Kitsilano child care could increase their capacities if the space was available. VSB staff and architectural consultants reviewed the space and facility requirements of the child care operators along with the other NCLD program requests. After considerable analysis, the consultants and staff deemed approximately 60 child care spots as the threshold in the NCLD. When reviewed with the Steering Committee, the space allocation for 60 child care spots was determined as appropriate. In addition, they advised that existing child care operators would remain on site, and if required in the future that the opportunity to revisit existing operator relationships could be done at rental license renewal. General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 4 of 17 As noted above, VSB staff and architectural consultants reviewed the child care requirements alongside the community and school requirements to meet the NCLD vision. In doing so they defined a program and allocated various areas to meet specific program needs (further discussed below). This NCLD program and space allocation proposal was presented to the Steering Committee to ensure that the program and areas defined were reasonable. The Steering Committee advised that any additional space requested needed to be linked with the NCLD objectives and must be supported by the Ministry. 3. The General Gordon NCLD Program and Space Allocation Proposal To integrate the area parameters and program needs of the various factors identified above (i.e., partner agencies, enrolment and district program area requirements, school vision session input), the VSB engaged Colborne Architects to analyze the site and help develop the space program proposal. The General Gordon NCLD program includes the following program enhancements and additional space allocations. NCLD Program Enhancements and Area Allocations Program Enhancement Area Description (m2) Learning Connections 80 Additional space (80m2) to support current and future community partnerships and programs such as community literacy, post secondary student exchange programs, community services, parent’s education and resources; may be used to enhance the multi-purpose room or created as a separate space. This 80 m2 space could be available to the community after school hours. Music 100 A dedicated music classroom (100 m2) to ensure adequate storage, sound acoustics, and practice area. The music room can help support local arts and culture activities as it could be made available for community groups like Arts Umbrella as well as rented as rehearsal space by local choirs and bands. Art 20 Top-up to a general instruction classroom with additional space (20 m2) for equipment, messy areas, storage, and sink. Local artists could partner with the school to teach specific programs and participate in special events, celebrations and festivals at school and in the neighbourhood. Computer Space 40 Top-up space (40 m2) to integrate technology within the library or other learning spaces. The space could be shared with NCLD partners to support community literacy activities, parent and community resources, and adult education programs. Enhanced Library 40 Top-up space to accommodate a bilingual book collection and small group literacy learning areas (40 m2). The space could be shared with NCLD partners to support community literacy activities and adult education programs. Flexible Gathering 30 Additional flexible gathering space (30 m2) can be used to extend the multi-purpose room, link areas of circulation, segregate small group work areas, support special needs learning, collaborative teaching and learning opportunities, as well as create informal social or meeting spaces for both the school and community. General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 5 of 17 Health Connections 20 Top-up space (20m2) is proposed to the Administration/Health area to support Ministry of Health initiatives. When this space is not being used by health providers, the school could use this space for counselling or other school health support services. Multi-Purpose Space with 140 Top up space to the multi-purpose room could be used for a Kitchen variety of functions such as school lunch room, indoor activity area for rainy days and large group projects (140 m2). A kitchen area is incorporated to support student cooking and nutrition programs. Out of School care programs would require access to approximately 240 m2 of multi-purpose space to ensure licensing for 60 spaces. The multi-purpose space could be made available to the community after school hours. The space could host a variety of activities such as summer camps, inter-generational activities, sustainability programs, community nutrition programs, as well as a variety of sport and recreation activities. Performance 60 Additional flexible performance space (60 m2) could supplement the gym or multi-purpose room. The school and community would use the performance space to support local arts and culture activities such as concerts, dances, theatre, and visual art showings. This space could be available to the community after school hours. Storage, Design and 133 Additional building circulation, storage, mechanical and other Mechanical design space (133 m2) related to the NCLD components noted above. Total 663 The proposed space allocation and program enhancements have been illustrated in graphical form and are included in the Open House boards as an attachment. The figure provides a comparison of the existing school area, the typical area that would be allocated to a core school per the Ministry’s Area Standards, and the proposed area allocations based on the considerations and analysis above. The total area allocation is summarized in the following table. Summary Table with Core, Enhanced and Total School Area Values Program Area (m2) Core School – (Ministry Standards and Early Learning 3,600 Spaces) NCLD Program Enhancements (includes mechanical, 663 storage, design space to accommodate additional area) Total General Gordon NCLD School Area 4,263 The existing building area is 4,849m2. Although the proposed renewed school’s area is less, the space is sufficient to deliver the school NCLD programming. 4. Summary of General Gordon’s Open House Event The following section provides an overview of the General Gordon Public Open House including the public notification, event details, format of the open house and the comment forms used to solicit feedback from the public. The General Gordon Public Open House was held on Thursday November 19th, 2009 to gather information and feedback from community members, parents and stakeholders regarding the NCLD project, specifically to: General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 6 of 17 - Introduce Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development - Provide an overview of the consultation to date - Introduce 21st Century Learning and School Design principles - Confirm the proposed space program for the NCLD - Provide an overview of the NCLD timeline moving forward - Receive Feedback Notification An Open House Flyer was distributed through Canada Post to 4,685 houses in the target notification area (from Larch to Blenheim Street and W 3rd to W 10th Avenue) 2. Approximately 450 were sent home with General Gordon students and staff. The notification included the date, time, and location map of the Open House and stated the purpose of the evening; it also noted that members of the project team would be available to answer questions about any of the material presented. Notification Area In addition, a similar notification was placed as an advertisement in a local paper, the Vancouver Courier (Westside) on three separate dates: November 11th, 13th and 18th. Samples of the flyer and advertisement notification are included in the appendices. For Your Information notices were sent to the following: MCFD and Ministry of Health. Vancouver School Board Communications notified Ministry of Education representatives, Mayor and Council, and VSB Trustees. Existing and potential NCLD partners were sent an Open House flyer. An e-mail invitation and reminder was sent to all agency contacts that had participated in the project process to date. 2Discussion with the General Gordon Representative Team noted that some people (friends and/or neighbours of the RT members) who resided within the notification area did not receive the flyer. General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 7 of 17 Event Details Date: November 19th, 2009 Time: 3:00 PM – 7:00 PM Location: General Gordon Elementary School (2896 West 6th Avenue, Vancouver) The Open House was held in the General Gordon Gymnasium. This location is easily accessible by parents, staff and other community members. Attendees: 143 people (made up of 81 parents, 26 Community Members, 6 staff and 30 other) signed in. This figure does not include the project team consultants, school board representatives and City of Vancouver resources. Project Team: Vancouver School Board Craig Sidjak Alex Grant Robert Moore Celene Fung Robert Li (Mandarin Translator) Brook + Associates Inc. Laurie Schmidt Blaire Chisholm Kerri Zaine Colborne Architecture Allan Hepburn Heather Fitzpatrick Representative Team: Margaret Davidson, Principal Charlotte French, PAC Linda Light, Community Member Bill Uhrich, PAC Larry Benge, Community Member City of Vancouver Resources: David Autiero, Development Services Stakeholder Resources: West Side Family Place Jericho Kids Club General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 8 of 17 Format Twenty-two Open House information panels (36” X 48” in size) were displayed throughout the room and provided information in five subject areas: - Information about the NCLD Project (background, process timeline, participants, potential partners) - School & Community Context, Vision Session Summary and Potential Partners (existing and proposed school and community uses, agency consultation and interest) - 21st Century Learning and Design Principles (design principles and program clusters) - NCLD Proposed Program and Space Allocation (proposed programs, services and area (m2) - Site Analysis and Site Concepts (evaluation of school site, three concepts: full renovation, partial retention, full replacement). A power-point presentation containing 21st Century Design imagery and the School’s Vision Session Tablecloths was projected onto a large screen and looped throughout the entire evening. Attendees reviewed the Open House display boards and the project team was available to answer questions and listen to feedback on the content of the boards or about the project in general. After attendees reviewed the communication materials they were asked to give feedback on the comment form provided. General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 9 of 17 Images from General Gordon Open House General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 10 of 17 Comment Forms The comment forms requested that attendees identify themselves as a Parent, Community Member, Staff, or Other and the questions were as follows: 1. What aspects of the 21st Century Learning and School Design (Arts & Media, Social Spaces, Activity Spaces, Learning Spaces, Area Relationships, Sustainability) concepts do you like or dislike? Please explain. 2. Several potential partner agencies are proposed for the General Gordon Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development. Does the mix of partners meet your expectations based on the Vision for the NCLD project (as referenced on the Potential NCLD Partner Agencies board)? 3. The General Gordon Space Analysis & NCLD Program enhancements are defined. How well do the spaces, programs and areas allocated to them deliver the school and NCLD vision? 4. Please provide your feedback about the General Gordon Site Analysis & Concepts (Renovation, Partial Replacement or Full Replacement). What do you like or dislike? 5. Additional Comments. A total of 116 forms were recorded: 72 comment forms were submitted at the Open House, and 44 comment forms were received the following week by both fax and e-mail. The comment form was distributed to members of the community prior to the Open House, as well as being available at existing agency spaces – this likely encouraged more interest and attendance in the event. In addition, the display boards and comment form were posted on the VSB website after Open House. At the Open House, attendees were given comment forms and the option of completing the forms at the Open House or taking them away to complete and return to Brook + Associates by November 27th. Of those who attended approximately 50% took the time to complete the comment form at the Open House; the remainder of the forms were received the following week. 5. A Summary of Open House Feedback The following section summarizes the feedback received on the NCLD project and General Gordon program and space allocation proposal that was received at the Open House. Other feedback has been received throughout this process and is noted at the end of this section. General Feedback The Open House was very well attended and the atmosphere was mixed. Attendees were very interested in the NCLD and the future of their school. A number of attendees had questions and concerns relating to the process and the end product. However, the attendees were supportive of a safe school for the children and one where learning came first. The Open House provided an opportunity for the project team to initiate communication directly with members of the community and listen to their feedback. Close to sixty percent (60%) of the attendees at the Open House were parents, approximately eighteen percent (18%) were community members (without children at the school), nine percent (9%) were other (e.g., grandparents, participant agencies etc.), four percent (4%) were staff and approximately twelve percent (12%) were unmarked. Several students also attended the open house and many of them filled out comment forms. The popular topics discussed during the Open House and through the feedback received from the comment forms include: - Concern that the new 21st Century School would result in a smaller facility than currently exists; - Loss of the heritage school building; - Maintain a high level of sustainability; - Safety and education of the students comes first; General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 11 of 17 - Maintain the outdoor green space; - Retain the covered play areas; - Maintain and enhance the before and after school care; and - Ability of the Ministry and VSB to deliver. The comments have been summarized below according to question. 21st Century Learning & School Design Concepts Although the comments received were generally supportive of the 21st Century design concepts (its focus on child learning, flexibility of building spaces, the delivery of a safe school, bridging the gap between school and community) a number of questions and concerns were raised. - Would the Ministry and VSB be able to deliver the final product due to cost and budget constraints? - Ensure the building (whether new or renovated) will be built for the long term. There appears to be some confusion about the lifespan of new school facilities as compared to existing buildings. - Unclear sustainability target. - Respect the existing building and its heritage value, both for the neighbourhood and the City. - Ensure that enough covered outdoor play space is included in the new design. - Ensure the outdoor green and play space areas are maintained. Mix of Potential NCLD Partners Most in attendance were supportive of the proposed NCLD partners for the school. A number of responses however expressed disappointment over the fact that there were only a few agencies that expressed interest in the school. They felt there are and should be more groups that could benefit both the school and community. Additional agencies suggested related to seniors and the arts. A number of responses expressed the need for flexible NCLD spaces to ensure that if agencies were added or if others left or expanded there would be adequate and suitable space for them. There is strong support from all groups for the maintenance and expansion of the existing child care facilities. Space Analysis and Program Enhancements Of the 116 comment forms received, fifty four (54) did not provide a response to this question. The remaining 62 responses provided mixed feedback about how well the spaces, programs and areas delivered the NCLD vision, and focused on three common themes: ° concern with the overall reduction in the school area; ° identifying a specific programmed space and questioning whether sufficient space had been allocated to it; and ° highlighting specific program elements they felt delivered the vision. Many of those concerned with the overall reduction in the school area identified that the proposed space allocation for a replacement school was smaller than the existing school and concern with whether it would be adequate to deliver both the educational and NCLD programs successfully. Comments about specific programs asked whether adequate space was allocated to classrooms, storage, gym, stage, multi-purpose for child care and design space. The ability of the spaces to be flexible and to accommodate a variety of uses General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 12 of 17 was also noted. Many respondents repeated the need for a covered outdoor play area large enough to handle school and after hour activities, as well as being excited about a larger gymnasium. Some felt that what was being presented was not much different than any other new school. Heritage value of the existing building was noted. Site Analysis and Concepts This question garnered the largest response from the attendees. Of the 116 who responded to this question, approximately 30% supported the renovation and /or partial replacement concept. Reasons for their support were: - Maintain the strong heritage value of the existing building - Maintain the larger area, higher ceiling and wider hallways - Able to maintain the larger flex spaces like the basement - Renovation is more sustainable than demolition and new construction A number of those that supported this option felt it important that the students be transferred off site during construction. Approximately 20% supported the complete replacement concept citing the following reasons: - Result is a safer school (as it relates to the seismic upgrade) - More sustainable - Less disruption to the children and staff (only one move compared to two or three) The remaining 23% indicated they were neutral and 27% did not respond (N/A). Other comments felt that the on-site parking was a waste of outdoor green space, and linked this with the need for sustainability suggesting that people should be encouraged to use alternate forms of transportation to get to and from school. They also felt there was more than adequate street parking in the area. Additional Comments Additional comments typically reiterated the comments given above with the common themes being: - More space is required than what is being proposed - Heritage value is important to the neighbourhood - Maintain a high level of sustainability - Maintain a high level of child care - Lack of confidence that the Ministry will be able to deliver. Please note that there has been additional community feedback received that is exclusive of the Open House feedback. See appendix for details. Conclusions and Recommendations The Neighbourhood Centre of Learning and Development (NCLD) process has benefitted from very passionate and involved parent, community and staff representatives at each of the schools. The process General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 13 of 17 has taken approximately one year to complete with the General Gordon Representative Team (RT) guiding the process and providing significant feedback throughout. Several factors have contributed to defining the General Gordon NCLD program and space allocation proposal, including results from the vision session, external agency needs and interests, the Ministry’s existing area standards, the facility expertise of VSB staff and architectural consultants, the advice and guidance from the Steering Committee, and the feedback received from the public Open House. The information received from the school’s Vision Session and external agencies helped define the program for the General Gordon NCLD. It helped to not only determine what the 21st Century Learning Spaces would include but also ensured that the space required for the NCLD program was delivered. The ministry standards were applied to define the core school requirements. Architectural consultants used their expertise to define additional building area required to deliver the proposed NCLD programs envision for this school. The additional NCLD space would support NCLD programs and improve the functionality within the core school. The Open House summarized and presented information about the NCLD project to the community. The information initiated a public conversation that uncovered opportunities and issues related to the project and the proposed program and space allocation for the General Gordon NCLD. The attendees generally support the concept of a NCLD at General Gordon. The comment form response to the question requesting confirmation about the NCLD program and space allocation proposal had mixed results. Close to half of the responses did not answer the question and the remainder noted concerns with three items in general: ° concern with the overall gross reduction in the school area, in particular the loss of the unprogrammed basement space; ° identifying a specific programmed space and questioning whether sufficient space had been allocated to it, (i.e., classrooms, storage, gym, stage, multi-purpose areas for child care and design space); and ° highlighting specific program elements they felt delivered the vision, such as spaces that would encourage community access (i.e. informal gathering, multi-purpose areas for child care, stage and gymnasium space). At the Open House and throughout this process, both parents and community members recognized the importance of providing a safe school for the children and teaching staff. Three facility concepts were presented at the Open House (i.e., complete renovation, partial renovation and full replacement) and these garnered extensive discussion. Many comments related to the provision of adequate space for both the school and NCLD and whether that space would be provided in a fully renovated or replacement school. Comments made about specific facility concepts related to the importance of sustainability, heritage, safety and learning environments. Some noted that the full renovation, and to a lesser extent partial replacement, of a building was more sustainable (i.e., by diverting waste from the landfill) than a full replacement facility, and that building retention would maintain an important heritage resource for the community. Comments that related to the replacement option focussed on its ability to deliver the greatest seismic safety and learning environments for students. A preliminary draft of the General Gordon NCLD Space Program Report was presented to the school’s Representative Team on December 9, 2009. Some of the RT members felt that the recommended NCLD space allocation proposal did not adequately respond to the concerns raised at the Open House. In response to the RT’s concerns, it was noted that the space program proposal and recommendations take into consideration numerous factors, as outlined in this report. An overview of the VSB’s recently adopted General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 14 of 17 consultation process was provided, highlighting opportunities for future design development feedback. The RT was provided with the date when the revised Space Program Final Report would be publicly available on the VSB’s website (January 8th) and advised of the January 14th delegation request deadline for the January 19th Committee II meeting, if they wished to address any items in the report. In consideration of the feedback received throughout the consultation process, agency groups and Steering Committee, the following recommendations are to: • Endorse the General Gordon NCLD proposed program and space allocation as envisioned by the school and presented to the community as sufficient to meet the stated NCLD program objectives. • Continue consultation with potential partner agencies after the Project Definition is endorsed to ensure the facility design accommodates sufficient flexibility to deliver diverse agency services/programs required to meet the needs of the school and community over time. • Seek design solutions for covered outdoor teaching and play spaces. • Revisit the comments received at the Public Open House once a detailed design process is initiated in order to address comments related to heritage, parking, space relationships and facility/space design. • Include the 21st Century Education Design, Comprehensive Audit, Seismic Safety, Heritage and Sustainability concepts as referenced on the Open House Presentation Boards in the Project Definition, Design Option and Feasibility Assessment and Identification of Optimal Design Solution steps. • Follow an integrated design and consultative process that the VSB adopted in March 2009. • Forward the recommendations to Vancouver Board of Education Committee II - Planning and Facilities. General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 15 of 17 Appendices 1. Presentation Boards from the November 19, 2009 Open House at General Gordon School 2. Open House Notification (Advertisement, Open House Flyer) 3. Copy of Sign-in Sheet 4. Copy of Comment Form 5. Transcription of Comment Forms 6. Additional Community Feedback General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 16 of 17 Additional Community Feedback Three submissions have been received throughout this process from the following groups: • West Kitsilano Residents Association • General Gordon Parent Advisory Council Renewal Committee; and • General Gordon Staff. The West Kitsilano Residents Association presented a resolution to the Representative Team at the September meeting, as follows: “Understanding that concerns about seismic safety, achieving an optimal environment, sustainability, workplace issues, heritage preservation, and costs can be satisfactorily resolved, the position of the West Kits Residents Association is that the portions of the General Gordon School completed in 1911 and 1922 should be preserved as a goal of the school renewal process.” (passed July 7, 2009). The General Gordon Parent Advisory Council Renewal Committee circulated a letter to the General Gordon NCLD RT Committee via E-mail on December 9, 2009. The letter addressed three concerns with the November 19th Open House (summarized in turn). First, it was noted that approximately half of the renewal committee did not receive the Open House flyer. Second, feedback that they have received from people in the community suggests that the information panels at the Open House were unclear; ideas were illustrated, but how they specifically applied to the General Gordon school was not presented (e.g., sustainability, 21st Century Design Principles) and there was uncertainty about what information the comment form questions were trying to gather. The third item that was noted was that there appeared to be a bias towards a replacement school both in the content presented in the information panels (e.g., imagery of new schools, text neglected or included items of preference) and of the staff on hand. General Gordon NCLD Summary Report Page 17 of 17 Welcome! Thank you for joining us at the Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) open house. Purpose of the Open House: > Introduce Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development to the community > Provide an overview of the consulta�on to date > Introduce 21st Century Learning and School Design principles > Conﬁrm the proposed alloca�on of space for the NCLD > Provide an overview of the NCLD �meline moving forward > Receive your feedback We Want to Know What You Think We invite you to view the display boards, ask questions of the project team and ﬁll out a comment form. Your input is important to us! Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Where are you from ? Please place a pin on the map to indicate where you live or work! Macdonald Street 4th Ave General Gordon Elementary School West Broadway Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House NCLD Project Process � We Are Here: What Has Happened? TIMELINE:� � Open House � � Sep�2008� Jan�2009�� Feb�2009�� Mar�2009�� Spring/� Fall�2009� � Ministry� NCLD� Representative� Visioning�&� Summer�2009�� Open�House� � � � Announcement� Steering� Teams�formed� Agency� NCLD�Program� Confirm�proposed� � Committee�� at�Each�School� Working� Development� allocation�of�space�for� � Formed� Session� &�Agency� NCLD�program� Partnerships�� � What’s Next? � � IF�SUPPORTED Future� BY�MINISTRY� Consultation � � � � � Synthesize� Finalize� Dec�2009/Jan�2010� Project� Assess�Design� Identification� Ministry�/������ Design� Development� � Community� School� Open�House�&� Definition� Options�and� of�Optimal� VSB�Project�� Development Permit� � Feedback� NCLD�� Design� Agreement� Process��� Application� Public�Feedback�to� Feasibility� � Program�� Steering�Committee�� Solution Secured� � Funding� Recommendation� � Nov�2009� st to�VSB�Committee�II�� ��21 �Century�Education�Design� � Summary�Report� ��Comprehensive�audit� � ��Seismic�safety� to�NCLD�Steering� ��Heritage� Committee� ��Sustainability� FALL 2009 WINTER 2010 SPRING 2010 Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House What is an NCLD ? Provincial Seismic Mitigation Program and the Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development (NCLD) Project Background The goal of Provincial Seismic Mi�ga�on Program is to address the life safety of students and staﬀ in school buildings and ensure schools are structurally safe in the event of an NCLD Project earthquake. As part of the Seismic Program, the Ministry of Educa�on announced the NCLD Project to op�mize use of school facili�es. The goal of the NCLD project is to bring together Objectives: educa�on and community services in a single neighbourhood hub that would meet the • Deﬁne a facility opera�onal program needs of school and community. Enhanced NCLD schools can be used for educa�onal or for each school; Queen Mary, General community services, such as early learning or child-care programs, oﬃce or mee�ng rooms Gordon and Lord Strathcona. for non-proﬁt organiza�ons, health clinics, sports programs, family resource or seniors’ • Develop a set of Ministry policies and centres, industry training, or branch libraries. guidelines about how to integrate addi�onal community services into The Vancouver Board of Educa�on is one of six school districts in the province par�cipa�ng school facili�es throughout Bri�sh in the NCLD Project. A Steering Commi�ee comprised of representa�ves from the Ministry Columbia. of Educa�on and the Vancouver School Board will guide the process. Brook + Associates is managing the NCLD Process. The Schools General Gordon : 2896 West 6th Avenue Queen Mary : 2000 Trimble Street Lord Strathcona : 592 East Pender Street Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House What is an NCLD ? Vision NCLDs are intended to serve the needs and interests of parents and their children from the �me of infancy through adolescence as well as the needs and interests of the community as a whole while mee�ng District and Ministry direc�ons. These centres u�lize space and resources in exis�ng, renovated or new facili�es to provide the surrounding neighbourhood a greater array of programs and services. Guiding Principles • Support the lifelong learning and development of young Health Se�lement people, their families and community without compromising Services Services the educa�onal programming, safety and func�onal space requirements for young people. Learning Community & • Provide for the direct involvement of agency partners in Connec�ons Family oﬀering the programs, services and ac�vi�es that serve the School Services & Literacy program of the NCLD. • Engage school and community partners and government in the development of the NCLD program. Child Recrea�on Care • Strive for sustainability (economic, environmental and & Sport Culture social) by eﬃciently using resources and taking advantage of & Arts opportuni�es to support the current and future well-being of young people, their families and the community over �me. Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Who is Involved? (Participants) Community Engagement Opportunity for input and Ministry community feedback of Educa�on Representa�ve Teams (RT) Each school has an RT comprised of the school principal, teachers, support staﬀ, parents and community members Community NCLD with a direct connec�on to the school. Visions STEERING Members of the RT par�cipate in a COMMITTEE working group for the NCLD planning process at the school and share Ministry of Educa�on Community & informa�on between their respec�ve Vancouver Board of Educa�on Agency Working cons�tuent groups and the working Brook + Associates Sessions group. Vancouver Board Queen Mary Open House Representa�ve Team of Educa�on General Gordon Representa�ve Team Public Mee�ngs Lord Strathcona Representa�ve Team Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House School & Community Context General Gordon General Gordon is located in central Kitsilano and serves a diverse and vital com- U�liza�on by School & Community: munity. The school accommodates students in two programs: Kindergarten to • District Program - Grade 6 & 7 Late French Grade Seven regular, and Grade Six and Seven Late French Immersion. Immersion Program; Grade 4 & 5 MACC French Immersion (+Grade 6 & 7 in 2010) School: General Gordon Elementary • Gym: Address: 2896 West 6th Avenue - pre and post school sport team use Age of Building: 97 years (Built in 1912) - community karate classes - community soccer team School Popula�on: Approx. 415 - Band prac�ce (piano) - More Sports programs • Library: - Lunch hour club - PAC mee�ngs ��������� ���� ������ - Vancouver Public Library programs • Jericho Kids Club - morning and a�er school ��������������� �������������������� ������ ���� care, summer camps ��������� �������� • Guides & Brownies • Covered play area (informal outdoor adult . community exercise class) �������������� ����������������� ��������� �������� ������� ���� Quick Community (Kitsilano) Facts: Census Popula�on in 2006: 40,595 ��������� ����������������� Number of Families: 9,755 Children Living at Home: 6,505 Language by Mother Tongue: ��������� ��������� ������ ��������� ��������� ������ ������� �������� ���� - English 75% - German 2.1% - French 3.2% - Greek 1.8% - Chinese 4.5% - Spanish 1.6% . source: City of Vancouver Community Sta�s�cs Census Data Community Context : Local Facili�es and Ameni�es Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Vision Session & Outcomes General Gordon Vision Session Overview The visioning session for General Gordon Elementary, held on April Par�cipants were divided into ﬁve smaller groups for the visioning 23, 2009, brought the school community together with local and exercise to record the ideas of each group on to “tablecloths” of provincial agencies in order to develop a vision for the General paper. In addi�on to the core educa�onal requirements and seismic Gordon NCLD. upgrades of the school, a list of the spaces and programs have been proposed as complementary uses for the future NCLD. Vision Session Outcomes A�er each group presented their ﬁndings to the rest of the Further analysis was done to iden�fy the common themes that par�cipants, many commonali�es became apparent among arose from all ﬁve “tablecloths” at the session. Below is a table that the ﬁve “tablecloths”. Par�cipants were lead through a summarizes the spaces, programs and discussion topics that were discussion to iden�fy the common spaces, programs and repeated in at least two or more of the ﬁve “tablecloths”: issues that would begin to shape the conceptual NCLD space for General Gordon. A “bubble diagram” groups related Space Needs Program Needs Values / Themes themes together: INDOOR: • Gym (larger) • Childcare • Strong Start • Sustainability: • Building design (lighting, • Stage / Theatre / Performance • Early learning heating) • Library • Before & After School Care • Life-cycle costing • Multi-purpose • Seniors • Recycling / compost • Computers / Media • Adult • Heritage • Lunchroom • Sport & recreation • Connection between indoor / • Arts / Music • Health outdoor space • Designated classrooms • Special Needs • Flexible / unprogrammed • Special Needs (sensory, OT) • Literacy space • Atrium / gathering social • Un-programmed space • Flexible space e.g. classroom, meeting space, ofﬁce, breakout space. • Administration / Management • Additional costs & OUTDOOR: maintenance • Playgrounds • Leadership • Covered play areas • Field (all-weather) • Parking • Community Garden / Outdoor classroom • Green roof • Preserve open/green space Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House 21st Century Learning & School Design VSB CORE PURPOSE It is our collec�ve responsibility as a school district to ensure the highest quality of learning for all students, with a focus on student engagement, learning and development in a safe, inclusive environment. School Design Principles: 1. Learner centered: 3. Community connec�ons: • learners’ needs are placed ﬁrst • the design of the building invites community • there are spaces designed for individualized support, par�cipa�on collabora�ve groups, small learning communi�es, • there are spaces to support community personal learning and reﬂec�on, social learning, etc enhancements to the educa�onal programs • a variety of learning and teaching styles are • it is a pleasure to learn, teach, work, play, eat, and supported socialize in these spaces 2. Healthy environment: 4. Aesthe�cally signiﬁcant: • a healthy and safe environment is provided for all • the students and community are proud of the school users building • natural ligh�ng, temperature control, ven�la�on, and • the design establishes an appropriate civic presence acous�cs are op�mized for the school in its neighbourhood • there are provisions for outdoor learning and physical • materials, massing, si�ng, and eleva�ons contribute ac�vi�es to an inspiring and coherent design (externally and internally) 5. Sustainability: • the building incorporates and visibly demonstrates sustainable design concepts • long life / loose ﬁt: the school serves its purpose well today and can adapt and evolve for the future Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House 21st Century - Arts & Media Spaces These boards are intended to illustrate newer, less tradi�onal ways of conceptualizing learning spaces. Library: Knowledge & Music • Proper acous�c de�ec�on, Technology Hub absorp�on and isola�on required • Informa�on from a variety of media • Located close to the performance • Di�erent space needs: tables for Chugach Op�onal Elementary School space and away from quieter areas groups, large classroom-sized Terry Fox Public School • Indirect ligh�ng and ligh�ng control gathering area, so�-surface areas for • Adequate storage for instruments quiet study Proper Acous�cs • Large quan��es of storage required: Adequate Storage Break Out Quiet & shelves within reach of young Flexible Music Space Group Spaces students, teaching unit storage • Easily & centrally supervised space Integrated Library: Mul�media Whi�er Community School for the Arts Terry Fox Elementary School Innisfail Middle School Ocoee Middle School MUSIC (Storage, light & sound control) ART GYM (Community Magee Secondary School Polaris K-12 School (Storage & light control) accessible, MULTI� performance & PURPOSE gathering) Messy Work Areas (Community accessible) Natural Light & Display Areas Art ADMIN • Ample daylight with ligh�ng control • Student-sized work spaces • Adequate storage, sinks, work & PLAYGROUND display spaces Celentano Museum Academy • Within proximity to or included in the mul�purpose space for larger group Spa�al Rela�onship Diagram ac�vi�es Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House 21st Century - Social Spaces These boards are intended to illustrate newer, less tradi�onal ways of conceptualizing learning spaces. Charles Dickens Elementary School Latona Elementary School Polaris K-12 School Covered/Uncovered Play Informal Gathering Spaces in Warren Skaaren Environmental Learning Centre Atrium or Main Entry Outdoor Learning/Rainy Day Play Welcoming Entry & • Exteriorclassroom connec�ons & Gathering Space gardens for ac�ve learning • Administra�on, security, school Interior Ac�vity & Gathering • Classrooms visually/physically Spaces access, easy to navigate, easy to connected to the outdoors oversee • Covered play areas for a rainy • Event spaces The Children’s Centre climate • Informal social space • Before and a�er school program • Gathering area for �eld trips; access & use Covered/Uncovered Play can be combined with the Accessible Roofs mul�purpose area • Can be available for before & a�er Outdoor Learning/Gardening school programs Suzhou Singapore Interna�onal School • Place for parents & community to Charles Dickens Elementary School gather inside and outside Outdoor Entries CIRCULATION GENERAL GENERAL TEACHING TEACHING OUTDOOR OUTDOOR CLASS CLASS Latona Elementary School Yu Neng Primary School Atrium School PLAYGROUND Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House 21st Century - Activity Spaces These boards are intended to illustrate newer, less tradi�onal ways of conceptualizing learning spaces. CHANGE/ ADMIN. NCLD STOR. MUSIC WC ART Greenman Elementary School KIT. Spruce Street Nursery School CLASSROOMS CLASSROOMS MULTI� GYM Integrated Performance Space PURPOSE Mul�purpose Kitchen Gym: PLAYGROUND • Historicallythe central gathering space within the school Multipurpose Room • Large ac�vity area that could J Lyndall Hughes Elementary School • Space can host a variety of sports & ac�vi�es: intramural ac�vi�es, be used for: messy classrooms, interschool compe��on, lunch programs, rainy day play performances area • Gym can be rented out to Conver�ble Mul�purpose Rm • Before & a�er school Delta Concert Band community a�er school hours for Performance programming • Adequate storage allows for • Possible to integrate �exible stage/performance areas mul�ple uses • Separate from circula�on spaces • Warm & invi�ng place for the James A. Gar�eld High School Polaris K-12 School community, a clear des�na�on Gym Community Use from the main school entry • Poten�al performance space www.rockwerxclimbing.com J Lyndall Hughes Elementary School Atrium School Bay County Seniors Group Gym Climbing Wall Informal Gathering & Play Space Community Use Mul�purpose & Cafeteria Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House 21st Century - Area Relationships This board is intended to illustrate a synthesis of the func�onal program rela�onships. School Zone Community/School Enhanced Zone Loading Outdoor Play Playground Learning Spaces: Classrooms Learning Exchange Music Kindergarten Adventure & Performance Crea�ve Play Mul�purpose Gymnasium Early Out of School Care Kitchen Ac�vity Spaces: Mul�purpose Learning Storage School WC Public Ch Stor. WC Flexible Major Circula�on Gathering Comp. Classrooms Classrooms Lab Admin. Library Oﬃce Entry Health media tech centre Work Stor. Break Stor. Staﬀ Room Social Spaces: Gathering Out Wc Group Special Educa�on Mul�ple Classroom Clusters Street Frontage & Drop Oﬀ Arts & Media Spaces: Music Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House 21st Century - Sustainability These boards are intended to illustrate newer, less tradi�onal ways of conceptualizing learning spaces. Rainwater Collection Large Sun windows Hydrologic cycle to increase Demonstration swale daylight Reflective Heat Recovery and outdoor roofing views Teaching Charles Dickens Public School roof nl ight garden su Shading Kennedy King College screens Post-disaster Operable design w/emergency Windows water supply Bankton Primary School viewing window Low emitting finishing to building systems materials (paints, flooring, glues) Stormwater Solar Control Underground Infiltration parking preserves “Garage Doors” Rainwater open space on maximize cross-ventilation collection school site in commons/lunch room into cistern Low VOC (Emissions) Products for toilet flushing Zoned lighting system Geothermal heating/ Design • Reuse/refurbish exis�ng materials and occupancy cooling Operations sensors to www.architecture.uwaterloo.ca/faculty_projects/terri/carbon-aia/case/global/global10. • Building orienta�on & shading devices maximize use of daylight and reduce energy consumption • Environmentally friendly cleaning can minimize hea�ng, cooling, ligh�ng Sustainable Design products and air circula�on requirements • Proper equipment commissioning • Energy e�cient ligh�ng & HVAC Reduced wastewater produc�on • Low emissions materials to improve air Education quality • School recycling and materials sor�ng • Water capture & reuse programs • Natural ven�la�on systems Momentum Advantage Partnership • Using the building & grounds to teach Community sustainability • Community gardens Natural Ven�la�on • Integrate community partnerships Geothermal HVAC • Encourage Alterna�ve Transporta�on www.lpsnrd.org/docs/EnvironmentalEd/enved.htm Galilee Catholic Learning Community Zipcar/Edison New Jersey Bicycle Outdoor Classrooms Encourage Alterna�ve Transporta�on Natural Materials /Dayligh�ng Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House 21st Century - Learning Spaces These boards are intended to illustrate newer, less tradi�onal ways of conceptualizing learning spaces. Spruce Street Nursery School Galilee Catholic Learning Community Classroom: Learning Hub • Clusters of classrooms teaching Breakout Space Options Mothers’ Club Family Learning Centre similar ages Galilee Catholic Learning Community • Quiet “cave” spaces within • Pairs or groups of rooms for classrooms for individual learning collabora�ve team-teaching & co- • Smaller adjacent spaces for group teaching projects • Adjacent to break-out spaces Visibility & Adjoining Rooms Quiet Re�ec�on Spaces • Shared between classrooms in a • Adaptable, �exible, with ample separate room storage & display spaces • Individual rooms or alcove spaces • Small group work & gathering areas along corridors within the classroom QUIET QUIET AREA AREA AREA AREA WET WET CIRCULATION GENERAL GENERAL MESS STUDENT TEACHING TEACHING GENERAL TEACHING STOR. STOR. STORAGE BREAK� OUT STOR. DISPLAY/TEACHING Charles Dickens Elementary School GENERAL CIRCULATION TEACHING QUIET SPACE/ STOR. STOR. BREAK� BREAKOUT OUT Innisfail Middle School SPACE GENERAL GENERAL TEACHING TEACHING QUIET QUIET AREA AREA AREA AREA WET WET PLAYGROUND Flexible & Exis�ng Classrooms Break Out Spaces Break Out Space Example Charles Dickens Elementary School Charles Dickens Elementary School James A. Gar�eld High School Atrium School Classroom Storage Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Gordon Elementary Upgrade with New Gym Concept 3-4 phases of construc�on required for comple�on. Gym in mul�purpose area, Upgrade with New Gym Concept classes & library moved into *This is a sample scheme for this concept only. portables in phases. Advantages: Limited Sta� Parking • Most of exis�ng building 6TH AVE W Poten�al maintained & upgraded Play Areas • Highest degree of building preserva�on Exis�ng Building Upgrade & Func�onal Altera�ons • New larger gym provided • U�lizes exis�ng elevators, main Classroom Block service connec�ons; boiler reused Hard Play Area • Sustainable design approach Exis�ng Loading area LANE based on reten�on of exis�ng maintained building fabric & upgrading of systems New Entry at Grade New 2-Storey Height Gym Disadvantages: New Music • Limited sta� parking area poten�al 10-12 Portables Required • Mul�-phase construc�on: During Construc�on: incl. library and administra�on 7TH AVE W portables required on exis�ng playeld; no playeld for dura�on Upgrade Exis�ng of construc�on & demoli�on & Mul�purpose disrup�on due to construc�on All Weather Playeld • Limited ability to adapt exis�ng school into new learning space Retain Community Garden congura�ons & new NCLD BAYSWATER STREET Exis�ng Montessori programming Pre-School • Main oor not at grade - mul�ple LANE levels impede accessibility N • Day care poten�ally relocated during construc�on Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Gordon Elementary Partial Replacement Concept 2 phases of construc�on re- quired for comple�on. Whole school including gym, mul�- Partial Upgrade & Partial Replacement Concept purpose area & library moved *This is a sample scheme for this concept only. into portables on eld. Advantages: New Sta� Parking •A por�on of exis�ng building 6TH AVE W Crea�ve Play Areas preserved; boiler reused • New gym developed Exis�ng Building Upgrade • New learning block created & Func�onal Altera�ons • Incorporates exis�ng elevator New 3-Storey Classroom landing levels Block • Sta� parking provided on site Hard Play Area • Retained playground areas LANE • Sustainabledesign approach New Entry at Grade seeks a balance between retaining New 2-Storey Gym exis�ng building fabric and replacing envelope & systems New Mul�purpose Area components Crea�ve Play Area New Service/Loading Disadvantages: Area • Either en�re school (including 7TH AVE W day care) to be relocated o�- 20-25 Portables During site (no viable site available), OR Construc�on on All en�re playeld used for portables Weather Playeld during construc�on; no playeld Retain Community for dura�on of construc�on & Garden demoli�on • Op�mum congura�on of BAYSWATER STREET Exis�ng Montessori new learning & NCLD spaces Pre-School compromised to accommodate LANE N exis�ng building levels & arrangement Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Gordon Elementary Full Replacement Concept 2 phases of construc�on re- quired for comple�on. Whole Full Replacement Concept school built new then old *This is a sample scheme for this concept only. school demolished. Advantages: 6TH AVE W • Exis�ng building retained un�l comple�on (no demoli�on prior BAYSWATER STREET to construc�on); no portables required New All Weather Playeld • New school building can be designed to accommodate new New Sta� Parking congura�ons for learning spaces Retain Community Garden • Exis�ng boiler can be reused New 2-Storey Gym LANE • Highest seismic performance overall Service Area • Main entrance & public areas New 2-Storey located at grade Mul�purpose & Related • Enlarged playeld; community Spaces garden retained • Sustainable design approach Drop-o� Zone based on crea�on of new building New Entry envelope & systems to minimize 7TH AVE W opera�onal environmental cost New 3-Storey Classroom Block Retain Exis�ng Trees Disadvantages: • No playeld for dura�on of Hard Play Area construc�on & demoli�on Crea�ve Play Areas • No exis�ng building reten�on Exis�ng Montessori LANE Pre-School N Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Potential NCLD Partner Agencies The Ministry of Educa�on will provide addi�onal space as part of the services delivered as part of the NCLD, and these agencies/ the capital project to accommodate basic services provided by any partners are also encouraged to contribute capital funding, where provincial and local agencies as part of the future NCLD. Provincial and possible, to provide enhanced facili�es delivering community local agencies are expected to provide opera�onal funding to support services. Agency Vision Session Exis�ng Expressed EXISTING PARTNERS: Agencies that provide services or programs that are im- Agency Contacted Session Par�cipant Partner Interest portant to the school and community and will be integrated into the NCLD & 21st Century Learning and School Design process. Art Starts x Arts Umbrella x x EXPRESSED INTEREST: Agencies who have been contacted throughout this proc- Associa�on of Neighbourhood Houses x x ess and have expressed an interest in providing expanded programming and City of Vancouver services at the school. These partners will be consulted as the NCLD & 21st Cen- Fresh Choice Kitchens - Community Kitchen Program x tury Learning and School Design process con�nues. An overview of their pro- Ivy Montessori School grams and services follows. Immigra�on Services Society of BC Jericho Kids Club x x x x CHILDCARE: Ivy Montessori and Jericho Kids Club will remain on site. The enhanced Kits Neighbourhood House x x mul�-purpose room would permit an out of school care licensed capacity of 60 spac- Kitsilano Daycare x es. Langara College Literacy Now (2010 Legacies) x x x COMMUNITY SERVICES: The Vancouver Parks Board has indicated it is interested in Ministry of Educa�on - Strong Start BC, Early Learning providing expanded community programs (e.g., ﬁtness classes). Ministry of Healthy Living & Sport x MoreSports x x x FAMILY SUPPORT: The West Coast Childcare Resource Centre provides training to MOSAIC x x support care providers and parents; they also run a very popular Toy Lending Pro- Provincial Health Services Authority x gram - these programs are drop-in. West Side Family Place provides parent educa�on SFU x and support programs - programs occur in the morning and include child minding St. James Community Square services. These future programs could be located in the early learning or NCLD mul�- St. James Daycare purpose space UBC Learning Exchange x Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society x HEALTH SERVICES: Vancouver Coastal Health is exploring opportuni�es to provide Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre greater health services, including immuniza�on, hearing and vision screening. Vancouver Board of Parks & Recrea�on x x x Vancouver Coastal Health x x x SETTLEMENT SERVICES: Organiza�ons such as MOSAIC and Immigrant and Se�le- Vancouver Community College - Regional Literacy x ment Services of BC provide programs that could include Homework Clubs, Art Pro- Vancouver Francophone Cultural Centre grams and other programming Vancouver Learning City x for the community. The nature Vancouver Na�ve Health Society of their services at the school Vancouver Police Department x would be deﬁned through the Vancouver Public Library x x need as iden�ﬁed by the com- West Coast Child Care Resource Centre x x munity. Programming could oc- West Side Family Place x cur in the NCLD learning connec- Young Naturalists of B.C. x �ons space. Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Proposed NCLD Program Enhancements Based on the input provided during the Visioning Music Art process a proposed NCLD school program and space Dedicated music classroom to ensure Top-up to a general instruc�on classroom with addi�onal space for alloca�on has been developed that takes into adequate storage, sound acous�cs, and equipment, messy areas, storage, and considera�on: prac�ce area (100 m2). The music room sink (20 m2). The Ar�sts in Communi�es can help support local arts and culture Program and local ar�sts could partner Computer • School pedagogy and values; ac�vi�es as it could be made available Top-up space (40 m2) to integrate with the school to teach speciﬁc • 21st Century School Design Principles; for community groups like Arts Umbrella technology within the library or other programs and par�cipate in special • District programs and learning enrichment school func�ons; as well as rented as rehearsal space by learning spaces. The space could be events, celebra�ons and fes�vals at • Proposed NCLD partners’ space needs; and local choirs and bands. shared with NCLD partners to support school and in the neighbourhood. • The Ministry’s Area Standards. community literacy ac�vi�es, parent and community resources, and adult educa�on programs. Learning Connec�ons School Capacity Addi�onal space (80 m2) to support current and future community partnerships and programs such as 40 Full-day Kindergarten (2 classrooms) Enhanced Library Top-up space (40 m2) to accommodate community literacy, post secondary student exchange 400 Grade 1 – 7 (16 classrooms) bilingual book collec�on. The space programs, community services, parent’s educa�on and resources; may be used to enhance the mul�- Early Learning (2 classrooms) could be shared with NCLD partners to purpose room or created as a separate space. This support community literacy ac�vi�es space could be available to the community a�er and adult educa�on programs. school hours. The core school program would total approximately 3,600 m2 Performance Flexible Gathering Addi�onal ﬂexible performance space (60 m2) Addi�onal ﬂexible performance space (30 m2) could could supplement the gym or mul�-purpose The proposed NCLD space alloca�ons would total supplement the gym or mul�purpose room. The school and room. The school and community would use 663 m . With addi�onal required Design and 2 community would use the performance space to support the performance space to support local arts and local arts and culture ac�vi�es such as concerts, dances, culture ac�vi�es such as concerts, dances, theatre, Mechanical spaces, the proposed upgraded school theatre, and visual art showings. This space could be and visual art showings. This space could be available to the community a�er school hours. available to the community a�er school hours. would be approximately 4,263 m 2 Storage/Mechanical Design Space Health Connec�ons Addi�onal building circula�on, storage, mechanical and Mul�-Purpose Space with Kitchen Top-up space (20 m2) is proposed to the Administra�on/Health other design space related to the NCLD components area to support Ministry of Health ini�a�ves. When this space Top up space (140 m2) to the mul�-purpose room could be used for is not being used by health providers, the school could use this noted above (133 m2). a variety of func�ons such as school lunch room, indoor ac�vity area space for counseling or other school health support services. for rainy days and large group projects. A kitchen area is incorporated to support student cooking and nutri�on programs. Out of School care programs would require access to approximately 240 m2 of mul�-purpose space to ensure licensing for 60 spaces. The space mul�-purpose space could be made available to the community a�er school hours. The space could host a variety of ac�vi�es such as summer camps, inter-genera�onal ac�vi�es, sustainability programs, community nutri�on programs, as well as a variety of sport and recrea�on ac�vi�es. Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Space Analysis - Area Comparison The NCLD Project deﬁnes space enhancement that would serve the needs of the school and broader community. The following graphic illustrates rela�ve areas between the exis�ng school, the Ministry Area Standards for a school capacity of 400, and the proposed NCLD area enhancements. Special Design Space (NCLD) Educa�on (2 Classrooms) Design Space (Corridors & Circula�on Space) Kindergarten (2 Classrooms) Classrooms (16 Classrooms + Music) ce Art an Legend: Top Up rm Up fo op Early Gymnasium Per T Classroom (Full Size Gym) (80m2) Learning Music Gym (2 Classrooms) Ancillary *drawn to rela�ve scale Ministry Area Standard @ 400 Health Connec�ons Grades 1-7 & 40 Full-day Kindergarten Add. Top Up Learning General Library/ Comp. Proposed Enhanced NCLD Area Admin./ Connec�ons Storage & Media/Tech Add. Mech’l Health Mul�purpose Flex. Exis�ng Area @ 400 Grades 1-7 & 80 Library (with Kitchen top up) Gath. Half-day Kindergarten Mul�purpose Reserved for future Ministry Early Learning Programs Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House Next Steps � What’s Next? � � IF�SUPPORTED Future� BY�MINISTRY� Consultation � � We Are Here: Open House � � � Synthesize� Finalize� Dec�2009/Jan�2010� Project� Assess�Design� Identification� Ministry�/������ Design� Development� � Community� School� Open�House�&� Definition� Options�and� of�Optimal� VSB�Project�� Development Permit� � Feedback� NCLD�� Design� Agreement� Process��� Application� Public�Feedback�to� Feasibility� � Program�� Steering�Committee�� Solution Secured� � Funding� Recommendation� � Nov�2009� st to�VSB�Committee�II�� ��21 �Century�Education�Design� � Summary�Report� ��Comprehensive�audit� � ��Seismic�safety� to�NCLD�Steering� ��Heritage� Committee� ��Sustainability� FALL 2009 WINTER 2010 SPRING 2010 Your input is important to us! Please ﬁll out a comment form before you leave. THANK YOU for joining us tonight Neighbourhood Centres of Learning & Development (NCLD) Project Public Open House PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development (NCLD) You are invited to join the Vancouver School Board and General Gordon Elementary School at a public open house to learn more about the NCLD Project. The project team will be on hand to answer questions and preliminary concept plans will be on display. The purpose of the evening is to: > Introduce Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development to the community. > Provide an overview of the consultation to date. > Introduce 21st Century Learning and School Design Principles. > Conﬁrm the proposed space program for the NCLD. > Provide an overview of the NCLD project timeline moving forward. > Receive your feedback. W 5th AVENUE Date: November 19, 2009 W 6th AVENUE Time: 3:00 - 7:00 PM (drop-in) SCHOOL MACDONALD STREET Location: General Gordon BAYSWATER STREET Elementary (Gymnasium) W 7th AVENUE 2896 West 6th Avenue We hope to see you there! W 8th AVENUE Ques�ons? Contact Blaire Chisholm at 604-731-9053 Ext.104 firstname.lastname@example.org Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development You are invited to join the Vancouver School Board and General Gordon Elementary School at a open house to learn more about the Neighbourhood Centre of Learning and Development. Vancouver School Board OPEN HOUSE Thursday Nov. 19, 2009 at 3-7 p.m. General Gordon Elementary School, 2896 W. Sixth Ave. Preliminary sketches will be presented for the redevelopment of General Gordon Elementary School as a Neighbourhood Centre of Learning and Development. > Introduce Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development. > Provide an overview of the consultation to date. > Introduce 21st Century Learning and School Design Principles. > Confirm the proposed space program for the NCLD. > Receive your feedback. Vancouver School Board vsb.bc.ca Organization: Vancouver School Board Ad runs: DATES TO BE CONFIRMED, Westside edition Ad size: 3 columns x 5 Ink: Black and white Contact: David Weir Tel: 604-713-5074 Email: email@example.com WEDNESD AY, NOVEMBER 11, 2009 THE VAN C O U V E R C O U R I E R W13 news Attendance at community centres remains stable Community centres combatting swine flu fears, transmission By Janaya Fuller-Evans Contributing writer “WE’RE EVEN POSTING HAND Community centres throughout the city are carefully following H1N1 prevention advice WASHING INSTRUCTIONS, IF from Vancouver Coastal Health, which is reassuring residents who use the facilities, YOU CAN BELIEVE IT.” according to the Vancouver Park Board. Dave Ellenwood Staff have received information from the health authority about disinfecting equip- numbers have remained the same. ment and putting up signs to make centre Burnaby’s department of parks, recreation users aware of prevention methods, Vision and culture has implemented guidelines Vancouver park board chair Raj Hundel said. from the Fraser Health Authority, including “We have signage in high trafﬁc areas,” Hun- posting contact info for the health author- del said, adding signs are in multiple lan- ity throughout community centres there. guages. Signs at the Sunset Community Cen- “We’re even posting hand washing instruc- tre, for example, are in Punjabi and English. tions, if you can believe it,” said Dave El- Vancouver Coastal Health has not worked lenwood, Burnaby’s director of parks, recre- directly with the park board but staff have ation and culture. attended meetings with the city’s ofﬁce Cleaning staff has been directed to pay of emergency management and are using more attention to commonly touched sur- VCH’s website for guidelines. Staff members faces such as doorknobs. Neither Burnaby Attn: Honda Owners are being told how to best prevent spread- nor Vancouver has increased chlorine levels ing the ﬂu during the H1N1 pandemic, and at swimming pools to combat further spread are also passing that information on to the of the H1N1 virus. “We have a chlorine level public at the 24 community centres, Hun- that works well for us,” Ellenwood said. “It del said. But swine ﬂu fears have not kept people away, he added. “We haven’t heard is very effective.” While Vancouver Coastal Health does not FALL & WINTER SERVICE SPECIALS anything about reduced numbers,” Hundel have speciﬁc instructions and materials for said. “Obviously it is a concern but it’s just community centres on its website, the sec- a matter of educating the public.” tion for schools and childcare facilities is The health authority is making preven- quite detailed and provides educational ma- tion guidelines available on its website and terial. Employees are directed to go home if providing general advice, according to Anna they are sick and inform parents when chil- Marie D’Angelo, senior media relations of- dren are ill as well. Both staff and children ﬁcer for VCH. are advised to stay home until they no lon- The West End Community Centre has in- ger have a fever and are well enough to par- creased its cleaning regimen, community ticipate in activities. Sneezing into elbows recreation supervisor Warren Coughlan said, or tissues, and washing hands afterwards, is and informed users of what’s being done to also encouraged, and well as frequent hand prevent contagion. “Down here, we jumped washing throughout the day. on this pretty quick,” he said. The health authority also recommends So far, people are still coming to the cen- that frequently touched surfaces such as GET READY FOR GENUINE HONDA GENUINE HONDA BRAKE PAD tre and have not stopped participating in doorknobs, faucet handles and toys be WINTER SPECIAL BATTERY OR SHOE REPLACEMENT 68 programs or bringing in their kids for child- cleaned at least twice daily. Regular soap $ 88 * 8888 N10 from Starting from Reg 124 K02 I03 88* 96 $ care. “It’s kind of weird,” Coughlan said, since there are reports of people becoming and cleaning products are sufﬁcient for kill- ing inﬂuenza viruses. For more information, with coupon $ 47* $ with coupon (Car-installed price) more fearful about public exposure to the go to www.vch.ca and follow the links to Keep your Honda driving at peak performance this fall and winter with a Starting from 13888* illness. Some parents expressed concern but H1N1 information. Will fall be the season your old comprehensive multi-point inspection. battery lets you down? Make every $ said program attendance and facility use firstname.lastname@example.org Our factory-trained Honda technicians start a smooth one with a Genuine DENTURES will perform an oil change, inspect your (Truck-installed price) with coupon Guaranteed battery, brakes, tires, all ﬂuid levels, suspension components, lights, wiper Honda battery. And with our 60- month warranty, a Honda battery Improve your vehicle’s braking performance Comfortable Fit! blades and much more. makes powerful sense. with a brake pad or shoe replacement. Service includes installation of front or rear brake pads NO CHARGE WHEEL or rear brake shoes and servicing of front Kerrisdale Denture Clinic ALIGNMENT INSPECTION calipers or rear brakes (drum machining or replacement of rotors extra). Our team of Denturists are BPS Denture certiﬁed to provide you * All offers are effective until December 31, 2009. Taxes not included. Installation is extra unless stated as included. ˚Civic Hybrid, S2000 and Insight are at with the latest technology available. Our clinic’s associates have additional cost. Please consult Kingsway Honda for more details. Please present coupon during write-up. experience ranging from new graduates to 30 years, so you will beneﬁt from our knowledge and our fresh outlook. We look forward to achieving the best possible results, while WHERE SERVICE, MEANS SERVICE providing the highest professional standards. Giao Le B.Sc., R.D. Are your dentures... FREE SERVICE SHUTTLE (DOWNTOWN CORE) Over 5 years old? BPS dentures are precision dentures that use high COURTESY CAR WASH FOR ALL SERVICE CUSTOMERS Loose, cracked or stained? standard materials to restore form and function while Making your mouth sore? Keeping you from enjoying food? providing exceptional ﬁt and a beautiful, natural smile. Our BPS dentures also come with a 5 year warranty. Call same day booking service hotline: If you’ve answered YES to any of these questions... WE CAN HELP!!! Please ask us about our Geneva 2000 dentures. 87-HONDA • 604-874-6632 Payment Plans + All Insurance Coverage Book online www.kingswayhonda.ca 11077330 Call now for your Complimentary Consultation Now accepting new patients 604.263.7478 Emergency Number 778-868-6776 Care home visits available 201-2152 West 41st Avenue, Vancouver www.kerrisdaledentureclinic.com FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2009 THE VANCOUVER COURIER W15 news STUART Restaurant Owners ... MCLEAN and The Vinyl Cafe . . . Advertising in the Vancouver Courier’s “Dining” Christmas Feature. “New stories! Class Notes New music!” As Heard On The Courier is well-read, with Naoibh O’Connor CBC Radio has a targeted distribution and can give your restaurant results! Centre in Vancouver Doom and gloom for Performing Arts Call today! The Vancouver School Sat. Nov. 28 at 8 pm Board is projecting a Sun. Nov 29 at 2:30 pm and 7:30 pm $600,000 surplus for the 2009/2010 school year 604-280-4444 thanks to a higher than ex- www.ticketmaster.ca pected student enrolment, School board trustee Sharon Gregson laments the with Special Guests according to a staff report to underfunding of public education. file photo Dan Toulgoet Jill Barber and Matt Andersen 604-738-1412 the ﬁnance and legal com- mittee earlier this week. It sounds like good news, deal with the costs for mea- A ﬁnal operating budget but not to Sharon Gregson, suring the district’s carbon for 2009/2010 will be pre- Vision Vancouver chair of footprint as required by the SELLING REAL ESTATE? FOR MY HOME BUYERS www.SUTTONMORTGAGE.ca sented for board approval in February 2010. the ﬁnance and legal com- mittee. provincial government. “We jokingly [Monday $ 00 500 2.15% 5 year CASH BACK variable/closed The district anticipated a She pointed out the night] referred to ourselves 3.79% decline of 500 students, but board made $7 million in as the doom and gloom 5 year the actual number was far cuts when planning for committee because deal- Towards Closing Costs for Sellers ﬁxed/closed lower at 247. Enrolment for the 2009/10 school year ing with what we’re deal- PLUS...Get FREE Home Sellers Package Mortgages facilitated by Finder Financial Services Ltd other programs, including and more cuts loom for the ing with now and then PLUS...Get a FREE Home Valuation and available for purchase of primary residence OAC. CALL BRIAN NOW! Terms and conditions apply. Rates subject to change. distributed learning, adult 2010/11 school year. also looking at next year’s www.SUTTONMORTGAGE.ca education, special educa- “It’s a tiny amount com- deﬁcit, which could be any- tion and international stu- pared to where we started where from $18 to $32 mil- w w w. B R I A N V I D A S . c o m dents was also higher than out this school year… If lion,” she said. “As one of expected, while ESL and you think of the $600,000 the people around the table aboriginal education num- compared to losing $10 mil- said, this is the time to start bers fell more than antici- lion in the [annual facilities asking the citizens of Van- pated. grant], we’re not even in the couver some provocative The extra students meant same ballpark,” she added. questions about what they an additional $5.89 million “So yes, we’ve been given want the public education in funding to the district, a slightly better enrolment system to look like—not but costs for additional than predicted and thank just teachers and not just teachers and special edu- goodness we have because parents, but the citizens of cation assistants, as well look at the underfunding Vancouver.” • I.C.B.C. Claims as other expenditures by that public education is go- Committee members dis- • Free Estimates the board cut that ﬁgure to ing through in our district cussed how to galvanize • Courtesy Car $2.89 million. It was fur- and every other district.” the public to speak on be- • Private Claims Welcome ther reduced by expenses Gregson said the ﬁnance half of public education associated with MSP, the committee agenda also fo- and how to make consulta- TEL: 604-266-3366 970 S.W. Marine Drive, Vancouver (Oak & SW Marine under the Oak Street Bridge) municipal pension plan, cused on how to handle tion for the coming budget carbon offsets, H1N1 and increases to the employers’ meaningful when massive several other costs, leaving premium for the teachers cuts may be expected. TEL: 604-876-8822 UNIGLOBE Victoria Dr. Auto Centre the $600,000 surplus. pension plan and how to email@example.com 3615 Victoria Drive, Van. B.C. V5N 5K9 (at 20th Ave.) Art for little eyes or custom portraits Wind-generated, FSC certiﬁed 11”x14” paper prints $29.95 Available at Pebble, Jack & Lola, Hip Baby, Furniture Salad, and online at www.ciciartfactory.com EW14 T H E VA N C O U V E R C O U R I E R W E D N E S D AY, N O V E M B E R 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 news Water quality a long-time concern Cop shops fitted with new water filtration systems Mike Howell ties design and management. “I ity at VPD buildings has been an Staff writer don’t believe it’s necessarily com- ongoing topic of discussion by ing from the street supply. I think ofﬁcers and civilian staff. In the The installation of ﬁltration sys- it’s the fact that we’ve got really, past, employees were told to run tems in three Vancouver Police really old buildings with really the water for 30 seconds before Department buildings has im- old piping in them.” drinking. proved the water quality of tap The buildings with water now A previous VPD report on wa- and drinking water to Health deemed safe to drink are the ter quality pointed out the sug- Canada standards. original headquarters at 312 Main gestion of running the water had The systems were installed after St., the VPD’s east annex at 236 “very little impact on alleviating an environmental company hired East Cordova St. and the support employee concerns or instilling to conduct testing in August dis- building at 5 East Eighth Ave. employee conﬁdence in the over- covered water quality in four VPD Filtration systems are expected all water quality.” buildings was below acceptable to be installed in the VPD’s main Mayor Gregor Robertson, who government levels. building at 2120 Cambie St. be- is chairperson of the police board, PHH ARC Environmental found fore the end of December. So far, and Vancouver Police Union pres- elevated levels of copper and lead the cost is about $24,000. Unlike a recent police board meeting, VPD cops won’t need bottled water ident Tom Stamatakis previously in the water. The company be- Details of the upgrades are out- thanks to a new ﬁltration system. photo Dan Toulgoet told the Courier that poor water lieved the materials were likely lined in a report going before the quality illustrates the need for leached into the water supply Vancouver Police Board today. that calls for the phasing out of events as the Celebration of Light new police facilities. through the distribution system The improvements mean the VPD bottled water. The city requested ﬁreworks display and demonstra- The mayor told the Courier last or plumbing. can now proceed to eliminate the the VPD adopt the policy. tions. month the seven-storey building “Some of the stuff that’s getting purchase and distribution of sin- Insp. Loris Zuccato, who over- Ofﬁcers can buy bottled wa- occupied by VANOC near East into the water may be as a result gle servings of bottled water, the sees the VPD’s facilities, authored ter in the VPD’s cafeteria at 2120 First and Boundary is among the of the very old piping systems in report said. the report and recommended Cambie St. and from vending ma- options the board is considering the buildings,” said Garrick Brad- The city has adopted Metro Van- bottled water be available only chines in all VPD buildings. for a new home for the VPD. shaw, the city’s director of facili- couver’s “Tap Water Declaration” when police are working at such The concern about water qual- firstname.lastname@example.org COMPLETE EUROPEAN FACIAL with a complimentary A. Hot/Cold Hydrating Treatment (10 mins) or DENTURE CLINIC B. Computer Face-Lift (10 mins) (Firms and tones facial muscles) Reg $98 Now only 35 $ www.worldofsmile.com Microdermabrasion • Certified in BPS system with complimentary $35 89 $ A. Photo-rejuvenation B. Deep pore cleansing • Newest technology LHE (Skin Rejuvenation) $ 68 • Complete and Partial Dentures Eye Treatment • Immediate Dentures 28 (improves puffiness, dark circles & wrinkles) $ Deep Pore Cleansing Facial 2995 $ • Dentures over implants Relaxing Body Massage 45 min $3995 • Repairs, relines sameday Back Cleansing $ 48 • X-rays, extractions provided Eyebrows 20% OFF Janusz Budzynski, Denturist by the dentist Bikini & Brazilian Waxing 20% OFF 3272 WEST BROADWAY 604- 738-2826 202-2929 Commercial Drive • Vancouver, B.C. V5N 4C8 GIFT CERTIFICATES AVAILABLE Valid until Dec. 31/09 (Commercial & 13th, 2nd Floor) 604-876-5628 NCLD General Gordon Elementary - Public Open House November 19, 2009 ho R sc BE ) ol at M E YM R Please sign-in with your contact information BE n IT re EM ou U N ld hi T FM ith M tc EN R NAME ADDRESS EMAIL / PHONE M HE AF R CO PA ST OT (w WHAT DO YOU THINK? Your feedback on the General Gordon Neighbourhood Centre of Learning Development (NCLD) is an important component of this process. Please provide your thoughts and comments to the questions below. Please indicate whether you are a: Parent Community Member (no children at school) Staff Member Other: __________________ 1. What aspects of the 21st Century Learning and School Design (Arts & Media, Social Spaces, Activity Spaces, Learning Spaces, Area Relationships, Sustainability) concepts do you like or dislike? Please explain. _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Several potential partner agencies are proposed for the General Gordon Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development. Does the mix of partners meet your expectations based on the Vision for the NCLD project (as referenced on the Potential NCLD Partner Agencies board)? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 3. The General Gordon Space Analysis & NCLD Program enhancements are defined. How well do the spaces, programs and areas allocated to them deliver the school and NCLD vision? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ continued on back of form... 4. Please provide your feedback about the General Gordon Site Analysis & Concepts (Renovation, Partial Replacement or Full Replacement). What do you like or dislike? _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Please return the comment form to the DROP BOX or fax/email to Brook + Associates by November 27. Please provide your contact information if you would like to stay informed about this project Name: ________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Phone: ________________ For further information, please contact Blaire Chisholm of Brook + Associates Inc. T: 731-9053 x 104 F: 731-9075 E: email@example.com Brook+ Associates Inc 535 Thurlow Street, Suite 410 Vancouver, BC V6E 3L2 General Gordon Open House November 19th, 2009 Comment Form Summary NOTE: The following responses were transcribed directly from the original comment forms collected at the Open House; however, minor grammatical errors have been corrected to ensure legibility. NOTE: “n/a” denotes a comment form response that was not answered. Please Indicate whether you are a: 1. Parent 2. Staff Member 3. Community member 4. Community member 5. Parent 6. Unknown 7. Parent 8. Parent 9. Other: student 10. Parent 11. Parent 12. Parent 13. Parent 14. Staff member 15. Parent 16. Community member 17. Parent 18. Community Member 19. Parent 20. Parent 21. Staff Member 22. Staff member 23. Parent 24. Parent 25. Parent 26. Community Member 27. Parent 28. Staff Member 29. Staff Member 30. Parent 31. Other: Student 32. Parent 33. Staff member 34. Staff Member 35. Parent 36. Community Member 37. Student 38. Student 39. Student 40. Student 41. Student 42. Student 43. Student 44. Student 45. Student 46. Student 47. Student 48. Student 49. Student 50. Parent, Staff member 51. Parent 52. Parent 53. Parent 54. Parent 55. Parent 56. Parent 57. Parent 58. Student 59. Student 60. Student 61. Student 62. Student 63. Student 64. Student 65. Student 66. Parent 67. Parent 68. Parent 69. Student 70. Parent 71. Community Member 72. Parent 73. Parent 74. Community Member 75. Parent 76. Parent 77. Parent 78. Community Member 79. Parent 80. Community Member 81. Parent 82. Parent 83. Parent 84. Parent 85. Staff Member 86. Parent 87. Parent 88. Community member 89. Community Member 90. Community Member 91. Community Member 92. Community Member 93. Community Member 94. Community Member 95. Parent 96. Community Member 97. Parent 98. Community Member 99. Parent 100. Parent 101. Community Member 102. Parent 103. Parent 104. Parent 105. Parent 106. Parent 107. Parent 108. Community Member 109. Community Member 110. Parent, staff member (teacher with VSB) 111. Parent 112. Parent 113. Parent 114. Parent 115. Parent 116. Parent 1. What aspects of the 21st Century Learning and School Design (Arts & Media, Social Spaces, Activity Spaces, Learning Spaces, Area Relationships, Sustainability) concepts do you like or dislike? Please explain. 1. I like all aspects of the 21st Century Learning and School Design concepts. I’m concerned that costs will be too high and these design concepts will fly right out the door. Community partners can’t pony up the extra costs (how many honestly believe that the VPL can afford to pay off the VSB’s new schools?) The early boards sell sustainability with both photos and words – I seriously doubt the budget will allow for this. You’re selling something you probably won’t deliver on. 2. N/A 3. I like the idea of expansion and modernization for children. I am concerned that the new programs will not limit the areas and activities available for kids. I am concerned about child security. 4. N/A 5. Most concepts were displayed beautifully and clearly. It was unclear to me what relevance all those amazing photographs were to the “upgrading of our school? Are we being offered any of these? 6. N/A 7. There are some nice ideas, around sustainability, for example. However there are many faddish concepts which will seem outdated in 10 or 20 years let alone the 100 which the original designers of the space we have were able to for see well it rains here – we need covered play areas. 8. At this point it is so broad that it addresses most desires, I believe it is the downstream cost decisions that matter. 9. Everything but I don’t know what activity spaces, learning spaces or area relationships are. 10. Visibility rooms, quiet reflective spaces, music space. It’s all lovely! 11. All the concepts are very appealing. I would just like to make sense that those spaces are available for use and not used as multi-purpose. We need a gym and we need a lunchroom as separate spaces. 12. Sustainability – very important. Social spaces – flex/unprogrammed space – also important. 13. Creative design to optimize space, however I think in practice storage issues with limit the effectiveness of this approach (clutter will unfortunately prevail) Space is necessity. 14. Sustainability, flexible social spaces, activity spaces. 15. Like all of the listed items. Would include seeing the Heritage include in 21st Century Learning. 16. I’m a total advocate of community schools. Let’s create the best one we have here. 17. N/A 18. N/A 19. A kitchen for said events, JKC and teaching cooking. I think it would be great to have spaces available for younger children, infants and tots (siblings) to come. A strong start program would be fantastic! Also for the school to provide programs to the general public in partnership with local organizations (e.g. Kitsilano neighbourhood house) would be beneficial. I think bridging the gap between school and community is of great benefit to the school. 20. N/A 21. Like very much the provisions of space and appropriately constructed for music room plus provisions for performing space. Like the library and computer rooms being close together/adjoining. I would like to see the library/computer place close to classrooms. 22. . Dislike: No outdoor covered play area for rainy days. Cloakroom and storage is included in classroom square footage. Other spaces appear to be good on paper, but is that how they will transform? 23. I like that it is child focused and creating congruency between our values and the learning environment e.g. open learning, athletic and creative spaces – covered outside play area – childcare and sustainability. 24. I like the learning spaces that enhance possibilities for collaborative learning. At space proposed hinges on a re-haul of teaching positions. This is unlikely. Indoor play space currently is great d/t basement. Not clear on proposed square footage of space. 25. N/A 26. Activity spaces and sustainability are very important to me. 27. I like the community aspects that connects town and gown… 28. I like the ideas and concepts – I’m worried about the details once the design is proposed. 29. I like all the aspects shown of the 21st Century learning and School Design. 30. N/A 31. I like the library and outside on the 6th poster 32. I like the extended flexibility of the proposed spaces 33. More space for all 34. N/A 35. . 36. N/A 37. I like that there is going to be a bigger gym but don’t like that there will be no music room, small no lunch room. 38. I would like to have a swimming pool. And we also should have tons of classrooms and have rotations through the classes. Ex. High school. I think a change would be good. Also I would like the school to be modern. 39. Need big gym and playground. Needs a chicken pen. 40. A bigger gym for assemblies. Maybe a swimming pool. A big playground. 41. Need social spaces, needs bigger gym. No baby playgrounds, needs skate board area. 42. Good large gym 43. Needs bigger gym and almost the same design, more swings. 44. Like the idea of media space 45. Maybe bigger gym! More social spaces, better earthquake thingy 46. N/A 47. N/A 48. Dance center, bigger gym, funner playground 49. Needs big gym and cleaner bathrooms and music and lunch room that need to be as big as the lunch room. Big playground with slide. 50. I like the light (natural) high ceilings and feel of spaciousness. The sustainability ideas are great, rainwater collection, less off-gassing by using bio-friendly products/supplies. 51. Pick up, drop-off parents. Huge herb or vegetable garden to incorporate in school lunch room. 52. Social spaces, area relationships 53. All of the ideas are interesting – can they be successfully facilitated? I like that the learning spaces promote and more holistic sense of learning and hopefully teaching so current teaching practices fit into these spaces/proposed concepts? 54. Learning spaces, sustainability 55. Seismic upgrading, lifelong learning 56. N/A 57. N/A 58. I think they are all good 59. I like arts and Medici social spaces, activity spaces and I don’t like learning places and area relationships. Bigger gym! 60. N/A 61. N/A 62. Huh? 63. N/A 64. Bigger gym 65. N/A 66. Sustainability, indoor/outdoor spaces 67. Sustainability initiatives, area relationships, natural light, improved arts and media. Green roof would be fabulous too! 68. Social space, activity space, cover space, green space, community play space, indoor pool. 69. N/A 70. Creating a building that is designed for eco sustainability. Better use of space for learning. 71. N/A 72. I don’t feel the designs meet the NCLD’s vision of sustainability. They are also lacking space. 73. There is very little that is innovative about what is presented. I do really like the quiet relaxation spaces and the high wood ceiling. 74. Nice use spaces, interior actively and gathering spaces, flexible spaces, school should be able to be used by community. Cover outdoor spaces, like the bell hockey space. 75. Like: Social spaces, learning spaces, area relationships, sustainability, full use by children/elderly/community of the space 76. N/A 77. What is there to argue with surely it comes down to cost. 78. More use from school space. Non-profit rental space great. Stage that could be used for music, theatre. 79. Early learning, child care programs, community uses (like the former Bayview Community School in the 1980s/90s). Non-profit groups can rent rooms, special events, a proper gym and stage for sports and music/art programs, the Gordon Band, etc. 80. I like the covered playground and gym space that has a stage. Wide hallways, natural light, large entry way for gatherings are important. 81. Great concepts! As long as it provides adequate indoor play area(s) and undercover outdoor area(s) (for lunch times) for the mostly rainy Vancouver climate! Also adequate lunch room space and after-care areas (JKC). Kids currently play in the basement on rainy days. 82. There are many aspects of the images that I find appealing; however the aspects I liked were not necessarily adequately captured in the text. Therefore I had the sense that many of the images shown may ultimately lack substance. For example would it be realistic to hope for glazing as is shown on the Chugach, Galilee Catholic or J Lyndall Hughes photographs? I don’t recall any images showing reuse or retention of existing structures. In order to evaluate the 3 options discussed below in an unbiased way, there should have been examples of renovated/reused schools. It would have been instructive to see images of past schools by the architect selected by the VSB so that the parents could have some understanding of what to expect. I like the outdoor learning as it will provide the collateral benefit of covering play area.There should be porosity between general circulation and multipurpose or gym spaces where possible. This would help to activate spaces and allow spillover for big events. It may also allow balcony-type situations with dynamic overlooks. Civic presence: schools are central institutions in our communities. They need to project solidity and lasting values. The most demonstrable way of conveying this would be to respect the existing building and renovate it in whole or in part. Is there a specific target for sustainability? Will the resultant building be LEED-certified? I would think that the most sustainable option would be to renovate the existing school. The New Building option shown on the Site Analysis & Concept boards shows west and east exposure for classrooms. This is in contrary to daylighting principles of LEED. To mitigate would require significant shielding with vertical fins. 83. Arts and media, shared spaces, covered play areas are great idea. Sustainability board far to vague. Is school to be certified LEED Gold? What is the projected ‘long-life’ Dickens was 25!!! Is there sufficient space for JKC to fulfill its current mandate. Licensing process is completely for JKC. 84. *I like involving community and give time to allow broad ideas 85. *Spaces for fine arts – music, art, and sustainability is great – as school where students can learn about how the building works. 86. *I really like the informal social spaces, breakout spaces and the cool outdoor covered play areas. 87. *I really like the spaces you show in the photographs (covered outdoor/ large corridors/open entrance ways/ large social (study areas). I think these are really important and should be included in project. The photos give the impression that they will be, but I don’t see on design scheme, so this is misleading to parents. General Gordon already has many of these spaces so a renovation would be suitable if new school could not provide. 88. *Sustainability – I like the concepts of natural light, geothermal heat, lean air, low VOC, and buildings that are meant to last. Use existing structures where possible. Spaces should be flexible and easily transitioned, from one purpose to another. Many good ideas presented in your 21st Century Learning and School Design but make sure spaces are practical. E.g. should be able to darken rooms to show films. Too much glass into interior spaces is distracting for kids. 89. N/A 90. The survey of potential partners is useful to establish a minimal baseline of area needs. The school, however, should not be designed strictly to facilitate these particular needs, but have built-in flexible spaces with an ability to adapt to many different uses, as these needs may change over time. The fact that the Design Space in any concept, and in the proposed program, is being drastically reduced, lessens any concept’s ability to provide these spaces. 91. Want to see gym. Maintaining green space and outdoor activity areas. Sustainability – retain and renovate existing – do not add additional material to landfill. 92. Designated art and music rooms, indoor activity/play areas are not new concepts to me. My elementary school (1960–67) in St. Lambert, Québec had all of these spaces, including a large, working cafeteria, complete Home Economics and Woodworking rooms. We did not have outdoor covered play area but here in rainy B.C. we absolutely need this for all schools. Initially, space for after-school care was not allowed for in the seismic upgrading program. While this has been recovered for General Gordon and the two others in this NCLD pilot program — it must be provided for in all elementary schools. Open, flexible spaces are necessary as are storage areas. All school gyms need storage and change rooms and a stage (for performances and assemblies). 93. Sustainable school with natural light, non toxic materials, access to outside. Large entrance social space, wide hallways for multiple uses, childcare. Community reaching reading room in library, covered play area outside, gym with reading on sides for community events and school arts programs. 94. N/A 95. “21st Century Learning”, like any century learning, requires generous and flexible space. General Gordon has provided flexible space for a century of different uses and learning priorities. The new, or revitalized, building must offer the same flexible space. 96. Sustainability and retention of the heritage part of the building would be at the top of my list, from an environmental, community, and educational perspective. I think the destruction of a school that has stood for nearly 100 years would be a very foolish move. In my view, it would be a wrong-headed decision in terms of what would end up in the landfill, what it would cost in environmental terms to replace it, the loss of cultural and architectural continuity in the community, and the message it would give to students in terms of what it is important in our modern society and in our community. From the discussions I’ve been in with parents and teachers, and my own experience of the school over the past 60 years, I think the social gathering places are very important, including wide hallways and staircases, covered play space, lunch room, basement play areas, multi-purpose room, etc. Contrary to the message being passed on at the Open House from VSB staff, there is not “wasted” or “inefficient space” at General Gordon. For example, the wide hallways are well-used as social gathering spaces and in my day as a student there (and I expect that is still the case) were well-used as classroom display space. 97. 21st century school design, to me, means a school that will last for another 100 years, the way General Gordon has done so far. I think that the flexible space and spaciousness of General Gordon must be retained in any new or renovated building. I think the social spaces at General Gordon such as the wide hallways and generous main entrance and lobby are crucial components in establishing a “community feel” to the school. 98. No comment - I have not been part of the ongoing discussion to date. 99. I really like the idea of opening up the school to the community. I also like the modifications which make different teaching/learning experiences possible. I am very concerned about cost and that these experiments are shared across the city. 100. My concern is it all sounds too good to be true. This is supposed to be a pilot at three schools that will be too expensive to be replicated elsewhere in the VSB. Focusing on building LEED and then building a parking lot for the staff is crazy – likely emissions from the car will far exceed those from the buildings. 101. I support joint use of school facilities with community activates – the only issue is parking – perhaps a joint use hard surface play area could double as a parking area after school hours. 102. Broadly, I like all of the principles. Regardless the school grands, it’s important to maintain the existing balance of built features with natural features (grass, trees, gardens). Regardless of the aesthetics, the design should preserve the valuable heritage features and building – specifically, the frontage and sides. 103. It all looks great. 104. They all look great. But how to choose – they cannot all fit in the proposed space. I hope there is a list of priorities for parents, staff and teachers to rank for this next step. 105. N/A 106. I don’t like the fact that it is intended to only last 20-30 years. Not great environmentally. I do like the design, but not location. 107. In our school, children do group projects and are given opportunity to work in separate areas if it works for them. I like the images of non classroom quiet working and learning spaces. I also like the large social gathering spaces. Our school has that now in the large, wide entry halls. That needs to remain part of the school. Sustainability is also important. 108. Library with community reading room, gym with stage, covered outdoor play area, cafeteria, gathering areas such as entry and wide halls. 109. I like the idea about revival of the school as a model of sustainable development, including energy conscious, preserving the school building as “embodied energy” as an existing building, with energy efficient upgrades. 110. I do not see the difference between 21st century good teaching practices and 20th century good teaching practices. See my attached letter regarding usable space in old school buildings verus usable space in new buildings. I have taught in both. 111. This is just some meaningless buzzword: “21st century learning”. All of those “spaces” existed in the 20th century (ie. The existing school building) but could use some freshening up. 112. With all respect, if one looks closely at the boards illustrating “newer ways of conceptualizing learning spaces” the most substantial difference between the photos and current GG building space possibilities is the furniture!! The space, like the existing GG, are square rooms with windows, but the 21st century spaces have funky furniture, bright colours and seating arranged in groups. The text calls for “soft surfaces” and “quiet study areas” great ideas all! But please don’t suggest that 21st century learning new furniture, bring colours can’t be realized in the existing building which also has square rooms and natural lighting. 113. I liked the panels that talked about innovative construction techniques for environmental gaining. I didn’t see enough of that in the space. The same for the multipurpose areas and covered play areas – nice picture, but they seemed missing from the phases. 114. Learning spaces –like. Sustainability –like. Social space –like. 115. It’s all good, but lots not got too hung up on concepts/specifics – 100 years from now we will be different. 116. N/A 2. Several potential partner agencies are proposed for the General Gordon Neighbourhood Centres of Learning and Development. Does the mix of partners meet your expectations based on the Vision for the NCLD project (as referenced on the Potential NCLD Partner Agencies board)? 1. Yes, but again – let’s be candid about how much money they can provide. I’d be thrilled for my child to be in a school with so many partners and agencies doing things in her school. It would/could be a real learning tool 2. N/A 3. Good Selection. Education mix will be varied and enriched. There should be some resistance to using the facilities as government offices not related to school. Healthcare? Immigrant settlements? 4. N/A 5. N/A 6. N/A 7. No, the list includes only existing interest from formal agencies. The community is a lot more than this! The community access and use will require considerable flexible space for yet unforeseen uses. 8. The list of potential partners is not concrete or realistic almost none have resources to commit. Make a few concrete partnerships to allow designs to gel. Beyond JKC, which partners are real? None? 9. What is the NCLD project 10. N/A 11. N/A 12. N/A 13. Looks ok 14. Sure. But I’m concerned about partner agencies in the future. How would those be organized and by whom and to what degree? 15. Childcare critical. 16. N/A 17. N/A 18. Glitzy! 19. Westcoast childcare is a great resource for parent that I think would benefit the school. A ECE daycare would be very convenient for siblings. I would like to see Strong start at our school. After school care is a must for many parents. Kitsilano neighbourhood House offers much support to families and would be beneficial for teaching kids cooking. Vancouver Coastal Health could provide health programs and talks to parents and vaccinations. 20. N/A 21. Seems fine as long as we stay with the current interested agencies. If we add on more there might be space problems. 22. Partner agencies seem well suited, as long as the long-term vision remains the same and there is no conflict of interests using the space and facilities. Who will manage (support) the agencies? 23. Yes if the school is the one setting policies keeping it child focused. 24. If we are limited to the 18 %, I am concerned about further draws on usage in our space. 25. N/A 26. Yes – great to involve as many of them as possible. In favour of expanding community access in all areas listed. 27. The more agencies the better. The school will serve as a hub and integrator only if it is active and used. 28. Agree with concept of neighbourhood participation, but not equal to the primary function as school. Staff who need to spend most time in building should be given primary consideration. 29. N/A 30. N/A 31. Jericho Kids Club, Art Starts, Langara College and more sports 32. Yes 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. N/A 36. N/A 37. N/A 38. Yes it does 39. N/A 40. Yes it does. 41. Yes it does. 42. N/A 43. N/A 44. N/A 45. N/A 46. N/A 47. N/A 48. N/A 49. N/A 50. I thought there would be more agencies interested and involved in the process. Expressed interest? When would there be a clear commitment from these agencies? 51. Microwaves to heat up lunches or soups for older grades. Make it affordable and safe. Better daycare program. 52. N/A 53. A mix of partners keeps things honest! Will it slow the process? I don’t know that I have expectations yet... 54. N/A 55. Yes. Excellent 56. N/A 57. N/A 58. Yes 59. N/A 60. N/A 61. N/A 62. N/A 63. N/A 64. N/A 65. N/A 66. No comment. 67. Partner agencies associated with arts and learning (eg. Music/performing etc.) that complement student programs would be ideal – that would open after-school options to working parents that want their kids included in after school enrichment. Synergy! 68. Vancouver public library, Kitsilano daycare, arts umbrella, Westside family place. More sports, more space for school age children daycare and young children daycare (3-5). 69. N/A 70. Yes, but would the vision group to spend full days at school to really appreciate how students use space. 71. Yes 72. No 73. No, the number of agencies falls short of my expectations for what would be included. Given the demand for meeting space in Vancouver I would have thought the list would be much larger. In particular, the lack of interest from Parks and Rec. Is a major concern. Where are the interesting, creative groups similar to the arts umbrella? 74. Yes, I came a little late, no need to pull the panels down when people are still looking at them. 75. Yes. 76. What about space for showing and modelling compassion for other – a community kitchen in which kids/parents can prepare snacks (meals for people in need in our community). 77. Yes. 78. Yes. 79. Yes, Jericho Kids club/afterschool care is essential for working parents. Covered outdoor plays serve multiple functions. VPL, Coastal Health, Kits Neighbourhood house, Park board. 80. I support partnering with other agencies to make the school a community resource. 81. N/A 82. I’m glad to see that the Jericho Kids Club is part of the process. I’m most excited about the Park Board’s involvement. They have been responsible for some very inspired buildings in the last few years, and hopefully will give a boost to the current level of school architecture in Vancouver. Involvement of the Park Board might allow for use of facilities such as McBride Park for location of any portables required by the Renovation or Partial Renovation options. 83. Not enough partners, where is community centre, parks and recreation. Does not look different than any other school. Look at Seattle or Toronto as examples. 84. *N/A 85. * All except for the daycares other than JKC 86. *The partners look good 87. *Some members of list I think would not work, in terms of suitability and safety. Members should be education focused as much as possible e (e.g. preschool/daycare/ afterschool care) and child –focused (e.g. scouts, guides, karate etc.) A senior’s day program I think would be really suitable and would allow for inter generational mix. 88. *The project should accommodate the full-demonstrated demand for before and after school care rather than limit it to less than current demand. I think the mix of partners is good but the consultation should be open and meaningful. 89. N/A 90. I actually like all the concepts. I don’t think most of them are particularly new, and my main concern with most of them is we will be hard pressed to be able to provide for all of them adequately in a smaller school. Arts and Media: talks about ‘adequate storage, sinks, work & storage‘, which are typically included in Design Space which is being drastically reduced in this program. Social spaces: talks about outdoor learning, but covered play space is not funded or included in the physical concept boards. Activity spaces: again, great images, a bit misleading because the program doesn’t allow enough space to include all these things. Area relationships: at the least confusing and misleading in its representation of relative space sizes; the size of the Flexible gathering space is compromised by the secondary diagram of area analysis which shows the drastic reduction in Design Space that is proposed, and which will not allow for enough area to include a meaningful ‘Flexible Gathering’. Sustainability: what exactly does ‘reuse/refurbish existing materials’ mean? Confusing. The most sustainable action would be to renew the existing building, and that isn’t mentioned. 91. Yes. 92. Yes, a mix of partners is a great idea but should not be limited to the ones on list (whether presently involved or expressing interest) nor should school’s redesign be limited by those on board. 93. Mixture of partners from the community to bring the community into the school and the studio and out into the community. Possible partners are: Vancouver, Parks Board, Kitsilano Neighbourhood House, Kits Community Centre, St. James Community Square, Jericho Kids Club, Arts Umbrella. 94. N/A 95. I support the NCLD mix of partners, as long as the needs and priorities of the school come first. 96. Yes, it seems fine, although not terribly exciting. It doesn’t seem very different from those groups who already use it. I have a feeling that there may have been a more useful and creative way of engendering interest in use of the school by, for example, speaking with groups of staff people actually working in the local offices of agencies rather than “head office” folks. For example, a focus group with staff at Vancouver Public Library Kits Branch, I would wager, would have sparked considerable interest. The library, especially the computer banks, are chock-a-block every evening I am in there. I suspect that this will be a case of “build it and they will come”. This means that in order to realize an NCLD that truly is a neighbourhood hub in the way that NCLDs were originally inspired and envisioned, there needs to be flexible community-space incorporated into the design – space that could be used by the school and daycare community during school/daycare hours and that could be used by the community in after-hours, without compromising the core needs of teachers and students. 97. I support the NCLD concept as long as the elementary school’s needs are the first priority. The mix of partners that have expressed interest seems like a good combination of pre-existing partners and new ones that would contribute positively to the NCLD. I see the Jericho Kids' club program as a priority partner agency. It is crucial to have such a worthwhile and well-run program on site. We have used the Jericho kids Club after school care program for 2 years now and foresee using it for many years to come. 98. No comment - I have not been part of the ongoing discussion to date. 99. Yes. 100. Yes – I like the fact that Mosaic, Langara and Vancouver Coastal Health Care are interested – they are three agencies that represent the kind of diversity of partners that could make a NCLD design work. 101. N/A 102. Seems okay. 103. Yes. 104. Yes, we need JKC, a full day-daycare is also badly needed. 105. N/A 106. Yes. 107. The mix of partners is fine. However, if other schools are getting similar space and are not expected to house partners, I am concerned that not enough space has been allowed for their uses. If this is o, there will be an impact to learning spaces and that is not acceptable. 108. Yes, a mix of partners is a good idea. 109. I like the idea of Kits community organizations buying Neighbourhood partners, especially strong Kits community supporters like the Neighbourhood house and kids club. 110. Schools need to be used for as many hours as possible and they must include the community – libraries, community meetings, healthcare, dental care, job training, adult literacy. 111. I support the idea of mixed uses of the school building outside of school hours. But question is very confusing. 112. I support the idea the NCLD potential partners. 113. I was disappointed not to see more commitment from other agencies like the Parks Board. 114. Keep JKC is essential and ideally allow it to expand to take more children. An incorporation of daycare for younger children 3-5 years old. Our community has a shortage of young daycare space. More afterschool programs. 115. Fantastic – the school should be open 24/7. This could be a great community hub. 116. N/A 3. The General Gordon Space Analysis & NCLD Program enhancements are defined. How well do the spaces, programs and areas allocated to them deliver the school and NCLD vision? 1. The allocations are just ‘concepts.’ How could one know if these theoretical allocations will fit in the schools? Are the classrooms going to be smaller? This would be bad. Will teachers have adequate storage for their teaching materials? This is extremely important. A stage is very important but it was explained as possibly attached to the gym with a movable wall for concerts and possibly attached to the multipurpose room. The concepts for a multipurpose room don’t show a large enough space for a whole school concert. I’d like to be able to see both my primary student & my intermediate with a student concept without being to recent so other parents can see them. 2. N/A 3. Seem to be well thought out. Green space outdoors seem reduced. Gym is great – track would be good. Climbing gym is not that close a match. Remember it is a school 4. N/A 5. Gym should remain a full size gym - is ours full size? I’m concerned by the overall reduction in size. 6. N/A 7. They are limited in vision and include many outdated concepts, such as car parks! The vision in 1912 when the space we have was created was much more advanced ad surprisingly robust to 100 years of changing student and community needs. It is just a shame they didn’t envisage earthquakes. 8. It is unclear what classroom sizes will be. This issue killed the last design effort. How will space be used? Dickens failed due to poor hallway space – is this flaw fixed by adding multipurpose rooms? 9. Absolutely? 10. N/A 11. N/A 12. N/A 13. Again much of the effectiveness of this area allocation depends on shared/multipurpose space but to best use them, the total destruction of the existing heritage (?) structure is necessary. If more space could be allocated for the necessity of preserving this valuable community building then the program could continue to function. We’d have more space, which may be perceived as unfair, but the exception would be for preserving the building as much as possible. 14. Pretty well. I think things should be flexible for the future I’m not comfortable defining what the school would look like in 100 years based on our needs now. Something flexible and open would be best in my perspective. So that for example, a music room may be important to Gordon now but in the future, art might be the future. 15. Space is critical. Heritage value of existing space is very important. 16. N/A 17. N/A 18. N/A 19. An outdoor covered play space is much needed. The children currently have to play inside on rainy days. A bigger music room would be fantastic. More greenery is always aesthetically pleasing and wonderful for kids to help upkeep. A bigger community kitchen for the after school care, school/ community events and cooking classes would be great. 20. N/A 21. It seems good, so long as the space for the school is adequate. Storage may still be an issue. If we have all the storage in classrooms, teaching space is reduced. 22. Some space allocation appears to be unclear (undefined) and is also being used in conjunction with other spaces i.e. library and computer lab. 23. N/A 24. Looks better than I expected. 25. N/A 26. N/A 27. Of course, more space and flexibility is the best. The concept appears well conceived, but the real debate will happen when some concrete plans/drawings are available. It would be useful to see examples or case studies from other schools in Canada, US or Europe. 28. They seem to conform, but that will depend on actual design and proposed finished structure. 29. Looks fine. 30. N/A 31. N/A 32. Very good 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. N/A 36. N/A 37. N/A 38. I don’t know 39. N/A 40. N/A 41. N/A 42. N/A 43. N/A 44. N/A 45. N/A 46. N/A 47. N/A 48. N/A 49. N/A 50. From the 21st century Design model – looks great. Love the outdoor learning spaces, library, music room, stage and big gym. How high are the ceilings? 51. N/A 52. Complete renovation including demolition of existing structure of school is not called for at all! 53. ? 54. Better boys bathrooms needed, soccer field, indoor activity areas needed. 55. N/A 56. N/A 57. N/A 58. They are good 59. N/A 60. N/A 61. N/A 62. N/A 63. N/A 64. N/A 65. N/A 66. N/A 67. They deliver the vision as much as can be expected without a design in place. 68. I was confused by the presentation. 69. N/A 70. Appear to meet vision if replacement of building occurs. 71. To answer this question you need a public meeting with a presenter fully explaining the NCLD vision versus space, etc. 72. They are lacking in terms of space and areas. 73. They are largely independent. Are we supposed to be excited about a 3% increase in area when any other school in BC is currently?! What a waste of time. There is nothing about the program that is substantially different than a normal school. 74. How can the space under new formula be half of the existing? What are the real are numbers? Does the difference represent 500m squared? The difference between existing and new program area. Staff should be better informed and able to answer questions. 75. From what I can tell, they seem to deliver everything required. 76. N/A 77. Common sense suggests all of the best possible educational outcomes be obtained with the space available. Good practice will dictate this, since we are not reinventing ant of the needs of an elementary school child. 78. Covered outdoor areas needed in Van climate. More space for JKC, Stage needed for the theatre and music. 79. More space is required for before/after school care (JKC). Covered outdoor play/multi-purpose. Stage for theatre and music programs. Sports field – maintain current size, no expansion. Library/community reading room/environmental curriculum. 80. It’s important to provide high quality spaces. And to respect and retain the butterfly garden and mature trees. The sports field is used intensively and needs to be retained in its current size. 81. N/A 82. The area comparisons between what General Gordon has versus what the VSB is programming did not include basement or circulation space. This is significant space in General Gordon and the omission skewed or obfuscated what the VSB plans to deliver. It would have been very beneficial to see hard numbers for the areas. If program enhancements are defined, the areas should be available. Compare those numbers to the three floors in the existing building. The full benefit to the community didn’t appear to be captured. Program use should have mentioned weekend use of the covered play areas by local children and adults. Program should have mentioned use of covered areas during special school functions like the outdoor spring event. Programming could include tutoring. There are quite a number of individuals and institutions providing after- hours tutoring. Could the VSB pursue and capture some of this market by actively making space available for rental? 83. The sizes (areas) are not sufficient to meet the NCLD vision. The school is small, only ¾ the size of the existing school so how would it meet the increased users proposed in the NCLD. The Amount of space proposed does not provide enough flexible break or space or unprogrammed space as desired by the NCLD. Where is the area for covered play area? 84. *It is important that no space gets lost. School needs to stay same size (or bigger). Outside covered playground is crucial since Vancouver is very cold and wet throughout the winter. Storage room needs to be sufficient to allow optimal learning with lots of tools. 85. *Need larger area for JKC. Larger area for music, library spaces for rainy day games. 86. *It doesn’t seem like there’ enough space for the 21st Century stuff – we really need lobbies and corridors for informal interaction and I don’t think the computer room should be combined with library – it should be a separate space. 87. *This is confusing question, as visual displays do not represent actual space for a new school. If there is adequate space and same size as existing) then NCLD would be great for community. NCLD vision cannot exist without the correct space. 88. * I would like to see more covered areas and spaces like the current basement area for kids to play out of the rain make sure the gym and multiuse spaces are big enough to be useful to the community outside of school hours. 89. N/A 90. The initial program for General Gordon, as presented at an earlier Open House, called for a school which was 2/3 the size of what we have now. And what we have now includes an undersized Gym and other inadequacies. So it surprises me that what is being presented is being labeled as ‘top-up space’ and ‘additional space’ when it all still adds up to less than what we have at present. If the intent of the NCLD is to add functions and their attendant space needs on to the existing school, those additions need additional space, not less. 91. Gym should include a stage and provision for theatrical events. Should have music rooms and child care facilities. 92. N/A 93. Again, funding for arts programs needs to be sustained and the spaces updated in the school for their programs to flourish. 94. N/A 95. It will be impossible to deliver the “21st Century Learning” in a space smaller and less flexible than the space already in existence. The loss of the basement square footage and the lunchroom square footage will result in a LOSS of current functional space. 96. See above under #1. I find some of the specifics difficult to comment on as so much is hypothetical, given that we don’t know which design option will be selected and we don’t know how much space will be allocated. It seems clear that a hybrid design model that keeps the oldest parts of the building (ie the main building including the basement) and adds a new gym etc. would provide the most space and therefore the most flexibility regarding space allocations. One thing we know for sure is that we need as much or more daycare space as now exists, and the new space allocations apparently do not provide that. Finally, we do not need off-street parking for staff. First of all there is ample street parking during school hours and always has been. And secondly, and very importantly, if we are concerned about sustainability, we should be encouraging staff to use public transport (and to work as locally as possible). There is excellent public transport in the General Gordon area, including express busses along both Broadway and 4th, and planned enhancements of public transport along Broadway in the future. To be encouraging car use and taking up valuable outdoor space for parking makes no sense in today’s world. 97. The 21st century designs are attractive, however I am concerned that it will be extremely difficult to deliver on all those concepts in a space that is smaller and less flexible than the current school. I understand that the basement sq. footage and the current lunchroom sq. footage would not be maintained in a new building and I think that would be a mistake. These locations provide much needed space for children to hang out, eat lunch and interact with each other in a civilised manner without being crowded on top of each other. Moreover, the JKC program uses these spaces for its program requirements. Anyone who has been there can see that the current space is fully utilized. To pen the children up in less space will mean more social stress. 98. No comment - I have not been part of the ongoing discussion to date. 99. I’m concerned that we will lose informal meeting space. Adding parking is a bad idea. 100. Without an actual blueprint I find it hard to fathom how the space analysis was determined. The large hallways are for me the space that fills with kid energy at the beginning and end of school and have been a welcoming area for parents. Will be lose that venue for us to meet and chat? I am leaning toward for more explicit designs. And where’s the JKC space? This is an expensive neighbourhood where most families have to have working parents. JKC space is not optional. 101. N/A 102. Seems okay 103. N/A 104. Still not enough space – I worry about loss of storage and hallways – hear in other new schools they have to stack chairs in the hallways for lack of space. YET, we can’t lose JKC space. Did we not get millions of dollars to make space for everything – make the building a community hub? 105. N/A 106. N/A 107. There is clearly not enough space available to match what has been presented as the needs of the 21st century learner. The lack of ‘design’ space means social and break-out or quiet learning spaces will not be possible. This is inconsistent with 21st century learning and with my vision for the future needs of the school. Also, there will be significant storage problems according to the charts. There will be no place for the popcorn machine. 108. Generous areas for most of the elements noted in question 2 can be addressed in the existing building. Further space could be developed with additions on the present site. 109. The gym must have a stage for performance and community events. A covered outdoor play area could be used for a variety of activities. Childcare space, flexibility has to be priority. 110. See attached. My concern is that the proposed space for the new school is not adequate. The loss of design/circulation space compromises flexible teaching leaving insufficient breakout space for speech and language consultants and audiologists, visiting specialists for children who have been identified through the screening process as well as all the flexible teaching arrangements that every good teacher uses. 111. Am not sufficiently familiar with the NCLD program enhancements to comment, but it appears that we are actually losing valuable space that is currently being used. 112. The current building has been adapting for almost 100 years. Certainly the seismic process present an opportunity to develop new spaces within but it hardly warrants demolition. 113. I’m quite concerned by the decrease in “design space”. I’m concerned that outdoor covered play areas aren’t addressed by the plan. 114. Not well allocated. Not enough space with the new school and hybrid school. General Gordon within the NCLD needs more space not less. 115. Sure the present school is somewhat symbolic but lunchroom space is very flexible and useful. 116. N/A 4. Please provide your feedback about the General Gordon Site Analysis & Concepts (Renovation, Partial Replacement or Full Replacement). What do you like or dislike? 1 I like keeping the old building with replacement of the gym. If one is honest about the costs and environmental damage I don’t see how it is excessively more expensive. Teachers need parking but not at that cost. Children in BC need covered play areas – it does rain here. All options need to include this. JKC space is not adequate now. We the opportunity to create space to accommodate even the kids on waitlist. Childcare is important with more parents working. 2 My main concerns that we continue to provide care while and after construction begins, I love my job and don’t want it compromised (JKC). A lot of families rely on our services and it would e wonderful to lessen in not eliminate the waiting list we have. Green space? How will that translate while demolition and building happens. 3 N/A 4 Like renovation. Retention – dislike any other option because of diminished space and diminished heritage preservation. 5 It’s quite hard to decide which concept is ideal – whenever I commented on something, the answer was – it can be changed – e.g. the full replacement school us crammed in the back corner, close to the neighbours gardens, and length-wise north-south – I was told it can be changed to West-East but garden would be lost. I don’t have an opinion as to which is best based on the confusing drawings displayed. 6 N/A 7 Renovation is the most appealing-it has the least car park- but why waste space on that? This is a community with a proud heritage and many historic buildings so to lose the heritage building we have would be a tragedy. The hybrid may work, but the east-west aspect is key to a light, bright space year round the heritage offers the most space of the options. Storage is important! 8 Seems biased against heritage retention. Parking seems so small to cause more problems than none at all. Outdoor covered play is not defined. Will designs be too tall for neighbourhood? Seems like all 3 schools will get the same designs. Unclear if stage space will allow full school assemblies. 9 N/A 10 The presentation looks impressive – however feels misguided. I understand we are not getting all of this i.e. VOC so why display as part of the concepts? 11 I feel that the beautiful boards may give the community a false idea of what the best product will be due to the tight budget restrictions more realistic photos of what to expect would have provided a more honest expectation. But if we do end up with those fabulous spaces…I’ll eat my words. 12 I don’t understand why you would site the building along a N/S axis in the “new” option totally unsustainable also too close to neighbours. Why would you leave the “multipurpose room” as is in the gym upgrade rather than renovate and leave the original H of the old school and replace this whole backside with a new gym/multipurpose room/music room in the correct orientation for sustainability? None of the 3 options as shown make sense to me. Much more thought needed her to site sustainability. 13 Well I would favour the renovation/ partial replacement options, which are essentially just different by degree. 14 As the school is a mish-mash of different eras, I’m not inclined to argue to keep it. Having a school site available while the new school is being constructed is a huge plus. I guess I’m in favour of full replacement. I think this would lead to more flexible spaces, as we wouldn’t be restricted by anything. A plan for outdoor space is required. 15 Would strongly agree with renovation of existing structure. Full replacement unlikely to maintain heritage value and space. 16 Keep the old school. So I guess I’m forced to vote for the upgrade with the new gym concept. 17 N/A 18 I would have preferred that the original community school concept had been retained and improved upon. It seems that we have a habit of losing valuable aspects of education and then reinventing them. 19 I want full replacement. Then the children can stay in their old school during construction. Portables are small and undesirable. I know I’ve been in one for a class! They are also costly. I think they are best avoided. With a new school I think the design process may be faster and less complicated and possibly construction faster. Also in a new school more of the floor pace is allocated to space available for the children vs. the old school where there is more space for the boiler room, etc. A new school is more space efficient. A possible solution I have heard to solve the problem of the children being on a noisy, dangerous construction zone is to relocate the children to a near site during construction then they will also have a play place. Just a thought! Out with the old in with the new! 20 I would like full replacement as an option because I want the safest option for seismic. I do like the fact that the children would not have their learning disrupted for the duration of the build. Childcare is very important to this school (JKC) The sooner the better. Lets get started 21 I hope for the option of total replacement. It is not possible to have a high quality teaching and learning environment while living with construction and being in portables. There are health concerns for teachers and students. Dust afterwards is also a concern – so health concerns do not end with the construction. Dust lives on, this is what happens unless there s a completely new building. 22 A renovation or partial replacement would be more disruptive to work in due to construction. Also it would have some limitation on the design of the building, as we would be working within set parameters. A full replacement would allow for more freedom in design and crating a NCLD school. 23 I like keeping the existing building and adding the gym. It is the most in line with our values of using space effectively and sustainability. Upgrade with a new gym please. 24 Given the current climate, full replacement looks like the safest/most feasible. 25 Larger/better place for the JKC program. 26 Not is favour of a brand new school – definitely support retaining existing building with windows that open, heritage building. Would like to see more environmental aspects included – geothermal etc. 27 The heritage structure is nice but not spectacular. Two would favour a well designed; distinctly west-coast style new building with the same enhanced facilities for community partners. I think the build should be fully sustainable and energy efficient – ground source heat, grey water recycling etc. 28 I like the idea of starting fresh. I’ve been through upgrades of the building in the last ten-year and the millions that have been poured into it. Starting fresh will allow new ideas and design. To promote heritage value would require redesigning the envelope to allow for original windows and entries. That would be too costly and restrictive. 29 I like the full replacement concept. Only two phases of construction. Not moving in and out of portables/ or in and our of different schools. Staff parking (which is actually in all 3 plans) Safer re: seismic upgrading. Shorter time to be completed. More consistency of design (aesthetic reason) 30 N/A 31 Full replacement concept 32 Prefer full replacement, less impact on students and families 33 Full replacement I like this because it provides the least disruption for the students and teachers. Teachers and the students will be able to stay together. Less dust – health wise. 34 I would like a new school! Less disruption, likely the cheaper plan. One move (as opposed o moving to portable then to a renovated building) less dust (Trafalgar fiasco) – healthier. 35 I think it is critical to retain the existing building, for its space value, heritage value and most importantly for the issue of sustainability. I believe that the quality of materials used to build this school cannot be replaced. E.g. quality of first growth wood, gym floor etc. I believe that the current siting of the school is ideal and I believe that 21st century learning can be incorporated into the current building. I believe we need to keep the wide halls, generous staircases and ample storage areas. I also believe that the building of a new gym/ auditorium will facilitate more concerts, assemblies etc. as currently there is little space for parents and concerts have to be staggered to allow for 2 settings. 36 Do not want existing structure torn. Very wasteful – will reduce room available and destroy heritage. 37. N/A 38. I would like a brand new school 39. I like the nice kids. 40. I would like a brand new school. 41. I like the gravel field, I think the grass field should not have trees, I do not like supervision aids. 42. N/A 43. N/A 44. N/A 45. N/A 46. N/A 47. N/A 48. I would like more swings, and better bathrooms and a grass field. 49. N/A 50. Partial replacement concept 51. N/A 52. Original building should be renovated rather than demolished and reconstructed. 53. Well, on paper they all look good. Again, a concept can only go as far as how the finished product will be used. I’m all for multi-purpose buildings ie. School senior centre, theatre space. Can the “purposes” use the building together to further learning. 54. The original building should not be demolished! It has great potential and should be preserved! Building an entirely new building would be environmentally irresponsible. 55. I am very much in favour of the “full replacement concept”. I feel this will allow much less interruption of learning, far fewer safety issues with a new school being built and then after the demo of old school. 56. Get rid of the old school 57. N/A 58. Don’t like being in portables 59. N/A 60. N/A 61. N/A 62. I don’t want to live in portables. 63. N/A 64. N/A 65. N/A 66. Full replacement is the best option. Use portables on field if you decide to go with renovation or partial replacement. 67. I would like to have more information about timelines and construction options from the architects – eg. Some professional opinion/projections. That would clarify the options and impact which in turn might affect parent support. 68. Renovation – with a redesign of the existing school. Using LEED gold standard, complete renovation of the school. 69. N/A 70. Prefer full replacement – least impact on students and provides maximum opportunity for optimally designed space – with large play fields. BUT need covered outdoor areas and play equipment. 71. I think it doesn’t make sense to demolish the existing historical building to create a new smaller building. Help to retain our neighbourhood architecture by keeping (partially) the old school. 72. Would prefer a partial replacement. 73. Therese boards are inevitably frustrating!!! They are virtually the same boards that were presented 2 ½ years ago. They were insufficient then and they are insufficient now! There is a clear bias toward new construction. Where is the analysis of adaptive reuse like that being used through the UBC Renew Program. The new option shown is laughable. These are terrible!!! The partial approach/redevelopment is clearly the best option but the way it is presented on the boards is so banal. 74. New school is located at the wrong location. Where would you place the school if the entire lot would be vacant. Think long term. Take the old school down and build a first class facility at the right place. Renovations – the cards are stacked with heritage people that go home to their gingerbread houses with granite counter and flat screen TV. Provide a 21st century school building for 21st century learning – we are not reading books printed in 1908 – renovation is the worst option. 75. My number 1 choice is renovation. My number 2 choice is partial replacement. I think staff parking is a luxury we can’t afford –surely staff should be primarily walking/biking or taking public transit. This space could then be allocated to a community garden or something to benefit both the community and kids. 76. N/A 77. See attached comments. With no reference to cost and thus viability, it seems a very paper based exercise. We all want the best school for the money spent, using a full and transparent way of calculating the real cost. Don’t destroy a wonderful building without very good reasoning. 78. The school should be renovated with a new larger gym added. School should also have room used for cafeteria. JKC. Renovation will be more sustainable and will result in a better building, space, lighting. 79. *It depends strictly on cost and product relation. The school needs to stay the same size. Outside covered playgrounds to be available. Time to finish the new school and safety for students during renos is important. A semi-renovated school is not an option if it means the students sit in dust for one year. If they get proper temporary classrooms renovating the old school is an option. A new school only 2/3 of size is not an option since space is crucial to allow proper teaching. 80. General Gordon is a historic school – home of Kitsilano Boys Band and alumni such as Norman Robertson and Stuart Keate. It should be renovated as much as possible to maintain its heritage value. The Vancouver Heritage Commission has recognized the heritage value in our city schools. The area around the school is a special character area and the school dates from the same era as the houses. It is important to children. 81. N/A 82. I prefer Partial Replacement. As stated above, the most demonstrable way of respecting the civic presence of schools in the community would be to renovate the existing building in whole or in part. The existing school has large openings for glazing and I would like to see these openings reopened and glazed. The existing school has a pleasant relationship to the street and the community as a whole. The existing school has generous interior spaces for classrooms and circulation. I don’t have confidence that this generosity of space would be carried forward in a Full Replacement option. The existing interior space of General Gordon has a nodal character that allows for informal gathering, such as at the main staircase. It’s at spaces such as these that a sense of school community develops. For Partial Replacement, it’s not clear why the entire school would need to be relocated to portable for the partial retention. The Renovation is very similar in that the new gym and multipurpose spaces could be built and occupied first, thus lessening dependency on portables. The New Building option shown on the Site Analysis & Concept boards shows west and east exposure for classrooms. This is in contrary to daylighting principles of LEED. To mitigate would require significant shielding with vertical fins. If the Full Replacement option was selected, and if the existing building were demolished, who would pay for a playing field to be built in the old footprint? Would this be provided by the VSB or would the PAC have to take care of this? (Sorry, perhaps the boards explained this. I don’t recall) I feel as though I’ve seen these three options before; that they haven’t been changed from previously presented versions. The message is that the VSB and the architect haven’t been listening or haven’t been responsive. At home, after the Open House, my spouse reported to me that the architect told her that the Renovation option was not viable and not really available as an option. Is this true? 83. N/A 84. The best design is partial replacement option but in general the boards are not very inviting and lacking in vision. The list of advantages/disadvantages is incomplete with only cursory information on the core values of heritage/sustainability. The location of the new school does not work on the site very well from an orientation perspective. 85. *I would like a process with the least upset to staff and students. Need to have all staff and students together even if it is a partial or full replacement. 86. *Please please work with the existing school – its lasted 100 years and just needs to be upgraded – throwing it out teaches our kids that new is always better – we teach them reuse, reduce recycle and I love the high ceilings and (potentially) big windows that open for fresh air – a new school would not have the same sense of grandeur and history. 87. * I really like the existing structure and think it provides an invaluable heritage feeling to area. The brick structure on outside is a big addition to community, which I don’t think replacement school would provide. I would most like to see a Partial Replacement, as it would increase gym size and maintain original structure. 88. * I prefer a renovation of the current school with new, larger gym. This uses existing materials, preserves Heritage and provides the space like wider hallways. Given the location of the school, close to transit, eliminate notion of onsite parking. Teachers should not be encouraged to drive to school. This space is better used for playing fields and green space or covered play areas. 89. N/A 90. General notes: Vancouver’s current government has recently stated its intention to become the Greenest City on earth. Good intentions. If we follow through on these intentions, parking at the school should not be an issue. We don’t have it now, and living closer to your place of employment and use of public transit will be themes of the future. Sustainability will be a watchword and guiding principle. It receives minimal attention in these documents. If global life cycle costing were included in this project, the Upgrade with New Gym concept would stand head and shoulders above all others as a no-brainer. The concepts seem to carry a predisposition favouring the Full Replacement Concept (FRC). This is shown in the construction phase boxes in the upper left corner, which are simple, yet not fully explained and confusing statements which make things sound more difficult and complex than they really are. The lists of advantages/disadvantages are also weighted toward the FRC. Specific: Upgrade with New Gym. First, nowhere is it mentioned or explained that if the existing 1911/1925 blocks were retained, that the interiors would need to be razed to facilitate seismic upgrading. Then they would be renewed and redesigned to create new spaces which would provide the rooms and areas required at this school. It would be essentially a new building inside the existing shell. Not complete enough comments on the sustainability advantages: lack of demo material in a landfill; retention of quality space with high-ceilinged natural daylighting; site orientation is positive; energy costs of producing materials for a new building, plus energy costs of delivery to site; Parking should be a non-issue. No playfield is really not a disadvantage, since it occurs in all concepts. Multi-phase construction is completely unexplained, and makes the process sound very complicated and difficult when it isn’t necessarily so. Disruption during construction is a reality for all concepts. Limited ability to adapt … Why? Seems pure BS semantics. Main floor not at grade: has this been a major problem in the past? Don’t think so. Partial Replacement: The old body with a new prosthetic. What happened to Main Level not at Grade, Multi-phase construction (2 is a multi!) in the disadvantages? Is this a bias…? Why does this concept include ‘retained playground areas’ in Advantages and the Upgrade does not? Parking is not an issue. If entire school needed to be located off-site, have we explored every possible option for a viable site? In talking to the VSB reps at the Open House, I don’t think they have explored all options yet. Since none of these options has been fully designed as yet, a statement like ‘optimum configuration of new learning & NCLD spaces compromised to accommodate existing building levels & arrangement’ is at the least obfuscation and at worst very misleading and false. Again, an incomplete treatment of sustainability arguments. Full Replacement: Wow! New boy on the Block! The accommodation of new configurations is possible with all concepts; not an advantage for this one only. I didn’t know the existing Boiler was such an Heirloom piece of machinery! Why an advantage here, when it is proposed to be used in all concepts? Seismic performance: all buildings, renewed or new, are built to the Seismic Code’s level for human safety; should be an understood non-issue, and no advantage. Sustainable design approach: no disadvantage here for the destruction of the existing building? Not a complete item statement. How does this concept ‘minimize operational environmental cost’ more than the other schemes? Overly long list of apparent advantages, several of which are not really advantages, that seems to be attempting to weigh the arguments toward favouring this concept. Extremely short list of disadvantages, which further favours this concept. Siting of this scheme is very poor. Disadvantages of its proximity to neighbours is not cited. Much smaller Hard Play Area, located with no overlook from the street. Necessitates removal of some major existing trees on north end of site. Additional cost of new infrastructure for a new building? 91. Definitely prefer renovation. This is the sustainable option. Any replacement buildings will not provide the same tall ceiling and wide hallways. 92. The schematic shows some areas decreased, i.e., kindergarten and design spaces. Well design spaces (corridors) seems to have been reduced by 50%. Let’s go block off half the existing width of the ‘design spaces’ to clearly illustrate just how tight it will be. No mention is made of proposed lowered ceiling heights. All those new big box houses going up on the Westside and in the suburbs have 10' ceilings — even in the basements — so why should schools be reduced to 8' ceilings. I also note that on partial replacement and full replacement diagrams, parking spaces are increased and wonder why that is necessary. One of my main concerns is that sustainability seems not to have been addressed; it has not been given the importance it must be given. Has everyone forgotten “Reduce. Reuse. Recycle” the catchphrase of the 90s? Have we forgotten the message of our grandparents who lived through the depression? Being wasteful was a sin and simply was not allowed. The Mayor proposes to make Vancouver the Greenest City by 2020. We had better stop tossing complete buildings (homes and schools) into the garbage NOW. Our landfills are filled to capacity and we have to explore new options. I read that incinerators might be the way to go but they are a source of pollution and what we need to do on all levels is stop producing so much waste and should be striving for the goal of ‘zero waste.’ Heritage value (architectural grandeur, aesthetics, sentiment, sense of history) aside, we must stop being wasteful. How better to re-introduce the principals of no waste, zero waste, than to restore and renovate what you already have. Retention of our schools which have stood for almost a century is the ONLY way to go. And by the way, I love old buildings; they are the first thing I am drawn to in any city I have visited. Our Heritage Commissions should have more voice so for me it is tied closely with my concern for sustainability. The third concept (full replacement) lists under advantages “sustainable design approach based on creation of new building envelope and systems to minimize operational environmental cost.” This statement makes no sense — it is vague, misleading and insults my intelligence. I was disappointed to see that there are virtually no disadvantages listed for the full replacement option — I could add a few. So it seems that the proposals, as presented, favour the demolition and complete new rebuild and I wonder if this was intentional. While retaining the existing heritage building I understand that the interior of the building would have to be altered significantly so in effect the inside would be quite an extensive renovation. But I don’t think this has been made clear — that in retaining the heritage exterior the interior can be modernized, reconfigured, and at the same time retain ceiling heights and light quality from the existing window openings. With the proposed new build (demolition of exisiting after completion of new) I notice that the school would occupy what is now the south outdoor play field and is much too close to the houses directly behind. The total square footage of each of the spaces (i.e., classrooms, corridors, outdoor play areas, both covered and uncovered) has not been clearly indicated for all three concepts. So while three options are presented, it is somewhat confusing and very difficult to make a proper comparison. I am also a little concerned that there has not been a global policy adopted — that the neighbourhoods with more voice may be treated differently. I note that the parents involved at Lord Kitchener have been led to believe that demolition is the only safe alternative. But it is my understanding that whether a building is renovated to meet, or built to, the Seismic Safety Building Codes—it has the same degree of stability. The community garden is to be retained in all options. What about schools that do not presently have such green spaces — do they get one? More money in general must be allotted to education — whether in the quality of the buildings or the programs. We know that Charles Dickens School was rebuilt but that many of the proposed building materials were not used; that in fact, lower quality, less healthy (regarding off-gassing) materials were used because of, you guessed it — lower cost. We will most likely not have better schools by demolition and new builds. So, if I were to be voting on one of the three options, it would definitely be to retain existing heritage building while doing seismic upgrading 93. My wife and I totally support renovation of the existing school. My wife is retired but taught for 35 years in heritage schools. She knows teachers who have been very disappointed in replacement schools. What are we telling our children of the next generation if we tear down this school and take it to the landfill. The school today has wide hallways, good light, good ventilation, natural ventilation. 94. N/A 95. It is unacceptable to reduce intensively-used square-footage, and yet claim that the school can meet the flexibility demanded by learning in the 21st Century. We have a child in JKC (Jericho Kids Club). This is an amazing program, not least because of the space which it is able to utilize. To lose that space, and likely, much of that program is just the first example of the losses incurred with the construction of less flexible space. 96. I am strongly in favour of a hybrid model whereby the core oldest parts of the building are retained, leaving the front façade unchanged and building wonderful education-enhancing, community-friendly spaces behind it, including a beautiful, creative covered area which could not only shelter children’s play on rainy days but could house school/community events such as markets, festivals, etc. rain or shine. The advantages and disadvantages listed on the boards for each of the options were clearly biased in favour of a new school. I am hoping that this was inadvertent. Sustainability is a huge issue and was not adequately accounted for in the “advantages” and “disadvantages”. Nor was cultural continuity and the value of heritage retention as a teaching tool. Nor was the location of the school on the site, which from all accounts was optimally selected by the original planners and architects. 97. I dislike the notion of building an entire new building and demolishing the current building because the current building is a beautiful edifice which has stood the test of time. Regardless of heritage status, it has a grace and solidity to it that new materials cannot replicate. It has generous hallways, stairwells and flexible space. Its classrooms have lots of daylight and high ceilings. Several classrooms are already interconnected and multipurpose. The proposed loss of design and circulation space in any new building is of major concern to me. I support the idea of a renovation of the current building because I think it is more in keeping with the character of this neighbourhood. A new house cannot be built here without it being in ‘heritage style’. Other schools in adjoining neighbourhoods are being renovated - Jules Quesnel for example. I think that where there is a will, there is a way. I think it can be possible to incorporate the NCLD programs into a renovated General Gordon building. 98. More effort should be made to increase daycare space. Parking should not be prioritized – however, anything to encourage alternative transportation should be – ie. bike racks, parking spots for car pools and electric cars, etc. I find the options on offer a bit confusing...I favour a hybrid model which retains the original parts of the building as the core, as well as the original façade, and adds a educational and community space to the back of the building, and a sheltered space for children’s play, school events and community events. 99. Preferences: Renovation, partial replacement. 100. I do not like the idea that play space gets lost in construction but I guess that has to happen. I like renovation and partial replacement best, but there are no associated costs, so I find it hard really to evaluate these options. I don’t believe we need to make parking lot – this should be a transit oriented school. 101. My main concern as a near neighbor for 25 years is the use of hidden and covered play areas by rowdies at night – whether or not the school is renovated or replaced, please consider eliminating such hidden spaces, or design them as fenced, gated areas closed at night. 102. I prefer the upgrade concept followed by the partial replacement concept. It’s impossible to evaluate the full replacement concept without seeing a full design of the exterior, since the heritage character in the existing building is very important in the this neighbourhood. That said, my primary concerns are the building should be safe and support a good education for my two children. 103. My concern is for the children during the building process. Will they have access to a gym or a playing field? Years without a physical education would very detrimental in a number of ways. I support the new building as the least disruptive process. 104. I am in strong favour of some kind of hybrid, that preserves the beauty of the old building (not shops it in half), where getting new facilities we need. 105. I like renovation – partial replacement. My concerns: sustainability. How it is renovated and partially replaced. In this process, is there a sustainable conscious? What is good about the existing structure, ie. Historical value and the largeness of space. New is not better always. 106. N/A 107. I don’t think the discussion of sustainability was sufficiently complete. It did not include impacts of demolishing schools, adding to landfills, etc. I think that maintaining the current building, gutting it, and retrofitting for seismic safety and additional bathrooms makes the most sense. I think you have left out items from 21st century learning in thinking options. I would like more options for the location of children during renovation. The whole site will be a mess. Can they go somewhere else? 108. I am convinced that renovation is the only reasonable option. The existing building is old but demolition is a terrible waste and not economically viable. Upgrading the old building preserves local heritage too. 109. Renovation has to be the only option. A replacement or partial replacement school unit provide the same area as the existing school as provisional space standards are lower for new schools than what we already have in place. Demolition of the existing community heritage structure would be a most serious mistake. 110. I want to retain the historic part of the school building and replace the gym and possibly the lunchroom. See attached regarding phasing of seismic upgrading. 111. N/A 112. Renovation is the option I like the most because of sustainability: by maintaining the existing structure and putting new interior spaces you have a lot of building materials going to the landfill (i.e. Existing structure) and you save by not having to purchase new building materials for the envelope. The advantages/disadvantages listed for each option are arbitrary and blatantly biased in favour of full replacement for which only 2 disadvantages are listed and in which the massive environmental impact of demolition is omitted. Sustainable practices do not just apply to new construction. The site analysis for retention lists as a disadvantage “limited ability to adapt existing school in new learning space concepts.” This is not true; on 21st century learning and school design boards item # 5 sustainability, VSB cit well today and can adapt to the future. The Existing Building has done exactly that for 97 years and with creative redesign, can continue to do so. 113. The three panels seemed very biased towards a full replacement. The schematics were to abstract to make useful comments. Children should not be on site in any case, whether renovation or construction. I didn’t see any evidence of ambitious or visionary design and planning. 114. Renovation. This allows us to keep the m2 and redesign the school to accommodate new programs and make it earthquake safe. This does not mean a patch job but a redesign and keeping the existing school. Presently the gym is not adequate for the school size. 115. N/A 116. N/A Additional Comments 1. Hallways need to be large enough. Your boards show hallways a meeting areas and learning area. This won’t happen if the halls aren’t big enough. When asked, “which option is the least expensive” the answer was “we don’t know yet” when we went through this process 2 years ago it was clear which was the cheapest. How has this changed? The board/ designs look remarkably similar. The school must be safe and adequate. The architect must understand this - spend time in the school and learn what is needed/desired not giving us what he wants. A new school is an opportunity to be creative and inspiring. Not same old same old. 2. N/A 3. N/A 4. Feel very strongly about retaining, while making safe, old Vancouver schools. 5. Don’t waste space on staff car park! Don’t bend over backwards to keep the “community garden” Try and find an off-site alternative for portables for our children so they can plat. Light ventilation (natural) is very important. 6. Rather than incur the costs of housing all children in portables. Serious thought should be given to utilizing empty classrooms in nearby schools. Hudson has something like 267 empty places (as per the VSB saying we should close some schools). If the late FI program was moved to another FI school (even in portables) and the rest of the school relocated to Hudson with a few portables we’d save money and teachers and students would be in safe and healthy environment, with playground. 7. Whichever option is chosen, we need to preserve a high quality and safe educational environment – otherwise we have missed the point of the whole exercise! So education cannot continue with the renovation or rebuilding on site. The dust, disruption loss of play space, outdoor would cause 1-2 years of the current children’s education to suffer. The school will have to continue off the building site. 8. Define the partnerships to allow good designs. Do not bias against heritage retention – seems to be the case. Be careful that classroom and hall space allow for the same feel of GG. The parent – staff interactions are dependent upon it. The architect is NOT inspiring! A great chance for a creative design is being wasted by locking into one firm. Let’s allow firms to propose basic designs and choose a firm by what looks best for GG. 9. N/A 10. I’m specifically concerned with the lack of mention around after school care such as JKC space – you show “community” use space, but do not indicate after school programs. 11. We depend on JKC for full time care of children before and after school. It is crucial that space is provided for childcare. 12. The pictures generally are not very realistic or inspiring on the boards. One of the most important things needed in the New/repaired School is covered play space. Where is it? 13. Please come to a quick question which ever way you go. The safety of my children is y top priority. The risk analysis is severe in the worst-case scenario, and needs to be addressed with a quick resolution. A complete rebuild, in my mind actually extends the period of risk, as the children remain in the original building for two years more. An outdoor playground as unique I important. The old slide was a community- gathering place, a destination, if you will it should be replaced with something equally unique and defining. 14. I have concerns about splitting up the school. This is a very involved community- the student body, staff and parents. I’d like the decision-makers to be educators in terms of future issues – partner agencies, allocation of flexible spaces. 15. N/A 16. Keep the old school! We need – this kind of heritage in our community – to not fill up our land fill with more building waste – we don’t need to cut down more trees to build new – you can never replace the buildings, the basement and all the nooks and crannies of high ceilings and big windows of this heritage school. Keep this building. 17. My key concerns are the daycare is intact – before and after school. As well as during the breaks. The community garden/green space is maintained. 18. Why do “we” have money for glitzy signs and presentations when there are significant cuts in the provincial education budget, particularly in maintenance and upgrading of schools 19. N/A 20. N/A 21. N/A 22. N/A 23. Thank you for creating a community that is in the best interest of our children (our future) and the community as a whole. He you for your long-term vision. 24. Size will have to accommodate childcare before / after school facility. Expand use for community activities – gym – rental rooms – classes. Art class, space- can be rented out for even classes. Science room – properly equipped. 25. Full replacement. For the best upgrade and longest lasting. Magee high school is a great example/model. 26. Daycare/ JKC after school care s a high priority for us – options to increase number of spaces? Are there options for the school to be temporarily relocated during construction? Am concerned about the lack of outdoor space and construction zone during building. 27. N/A 28. N/A 29. N/A 30. JKC is essential. Dedicated space for before and after school care would be the best. Outdoor covered play space. Safe non-crumbly building. No open concept classrooms 31. I’d like a larger gym and a larger grass field. 32. N/A 33. N/A 34. N/A 35. I believe that children should be moved offsite due to construction disruption. It will be noisy, dusty and disruptive and the children could ideally be moved to Bay view elementary during the seismic upgrade or another site to ensure children’s safety and well-being. 36. N/A 37. N/A 38. Big playground! 39. All said 40. N/A 41. All on sheet. 42. Swimming pool should be cleaner, bigger bathrooms, more monkey bars. 43. N/A 44. It looks awesome. 21st century 45. Yay, bigger gym 46. Sandbox 47. I think the school would be good in the gravel field. I think we should also have a stage in the new gym. 48. N/A 49. Great presentation! 50. N/A 51. N/A 52. N/A 53. As a parent my main concern at this point is how hampered my children’s learning is/will be with the existing structure. Anyway now hold appeal in that its an important regardless. My hope is that any new space be fully and creatively used by different groups simultaneously. 54. N/A 55. I am concerned with greater disruption to our children’s learning in addition to safety hazards with a “partial replacement” or renovation of the existing school. I feel strongly that the most efficient way to go is building an entirely new school, and only after it is complete, demo the existing “older” school. 56. N/A 57. My first concern is safety, starting with making a seismic upgrade happen. Secondly, I DO NOT want my children in a construction zone for any amount of time. The new or redesigned school should be a “healthy” place for learning. Light, air quality, space, spaces that are conducive to learning to name a few of the important qualities. Community use of the school seems like a great way to achieve these goals and also makes the school like the heart of the community. 58. Better boys bathroom! 59. Bigger gym! Better outside equipment! 60. A way bigger gym 61. You should have a bigger gym with better lights. 62. Big gym. 63. It looks cool because are school sucks. I want to see a new gym and it the gravel field should be gone and there should be turf and we need a new ping pong table. 64. N/A 65. Nicer washrooms, bigger gym. 66. Should have a pick off/drop off location for students – might as well accept that people drive their kids to and fro and make it safer than the current situation. 67. The issue of aftercare (JKC) during renovation/reconstruction has not been addressed. Licensing requirements around things like contiguous green space are very specific – if and when discussions are made on concepts, these requirements must be considered so JKC can stay open or can we get a special license for the construction period. 68. To integrate more child services – all day daycare for younger children. More afterschool daycare space. Larger gym that fits all the students. School needs more space, not less. 69. More handicap entrances, 2 elevators, bigger gym with bigger stage, bigger lunchroom, bigger basement 70. How long will the build take? Can’t see adequate allocation to storage. How do various community groups manage their materials without impacting daily requirements of students? How will students’ security and privacy be managed? Who’s responsible for controlling use of spaces that are built? New mgt group? 71. I am very concerned about parking during construction. I live on 7th Ave. – ½ block from the school and already have cars from Broadway parking all day. Accommodations need to be made during construction to ensure neighbours can park. Need permit parking on w. 7th and assurances that construction plans include on-site parking. 72. I have concerns about the safety of the children during construction. Would like to see an option of having students schooled at a separate location during construction. 73. While the ambitions of this program were laudable the end results leave much to be desired. Also of concern is the lack of creative energy put into where the kids go during construction. They are bound to switch schools under any of the proposed options. What about the Olympic Village. I also did not receive a suitable response to my question about ‘what decides which option is selected’. Finally, where are the covered playgrounds as seen on the image boards. They are not shown on any of the options despite the fact that we live in a rainforest. 74. If you have to please heritage people that has nothing to do with the children’s learning. Leave the smallest wing (wing facing Bayswater) stand and build new as possible. What is the budget for the school? I applaud you for the vision, you are raising the expectations, make sure you deliver. 75. *I am concerned about the phase during construction. I hope the project allows dust free and safe temporary classrooms without construction noises. If need be I am very OK with driving outside the neighbourhood to accommodate temporary leading away from the construction side. Sustainability aspects like low electricity costs, water costs and wants cash are important since the school is an example to learn from. Children get a message on how the grownups solve problems and work as a dream. A school that lasts only 25 years and automatically uses electric lights is a poor example for the young generations. 76. *My vote would be for a new school 77. *This school and this neighbourhood really value sustainability and so does the new City government. The greenest option is preserving what we already have – please don’t throw it in the landfill. I don’t want the kids on-site during construction – it will be noisy and dirty and dangerous and there will be nowhere for them to run around – please find somewhere else they could go. 78. Thank you for the information provided at the Open House and the chance to give feedback. Given that cost is a key element, it seems extraordinary that this factor is not mentioned. The site concepts clearly have cost implications, so why not flag them and have this discussion now? Participation is more than just offering a chance to be involved: you have to make it accessible. Most parents know little about this process and have not been involved to-date. The way that the information was presented and the questions framed seemed to resume a great deal of knowledge, information and understanding. 21st century learning, NCLD are interesting buzz words/concepts but they really translate into easily understood ideas? If this process is for the many rather than the few, please think carefully about how you present the next phase. Why not call in a few average parents from each school to help shape the form and content of the next stage before it is presented? Your designs seem to assume that children will need to be taught on the building site (design states “no viable site available”). Surely other options could be found with some creativity, temporary structures elsewhere or empty space close-by? 79. A new school is not best option for our children. I have toured some of the new schools. Rooms are smaller, lighting is not acceptable, hallways too narrow, no lockers. 80. The children must understand the history of their community. They learn by seeing and experiencing. It’s not effective to have them read about a school that has been demolished. Demolishing General Gordon would be a terrible loss to the whole neighbourhood. At least keep the oldest parts of the school! 81. I hope the temporary classrooms will be warm while the new school is being rebuilt or renovated. I’ve heard previous prefab units were very drafty. 82. The boards didn’t appear to spell out when or if the design as it progresses might be available for public feedback. Will the Parent/Teacher/Community Representative Team be involved in the design phase? Will their say have impact? I heard many parents and staff expressing wishes for things that were either not part of this process or were unclearly explained. Comments included, “We need more swings”* and “I want clean bathrooms”**.I can’t fully explain how the Open House could have rectified this, but perhaps the boards could have clarified what topics were not being discussed in this forum.* My understanding is that the VSB does not pay for playground equipment; that this comes out of the PAC budget. **This appears to me to be more about inadequate maintenance budgets than it is about provision of a new school. I look forward to the next opportunity to give further input. 83. Why so little discussion of heritage? There are numerous examples from around the world and locally of buildings that are adapted and re-used. For example, look to “UBC Renew”. For several buildings that blend old and new in a cost effective manner that is respectful of history. Where are the creative solutions to ‘where do the kids go’. 84. N/A 85. The original combined classroom blocks has a perfect foot print. IE, an east-west orientation that allows good daylight, natural ventilation, higher ceilings, full hallways with lockers, central foyer/entrance/stairwell. The rick structure offers both embodied energy and thermal performance, the best orientation for the sun. Covered plat is essential in our wet west coast climate. 86. N/A 87. *Need undercover play area! This is Vancouver, lots of rain, but kids need to be outside – everyday! Especially the ones who need lots of exercise. 88. *My vision for this project and other school seismic upgrades, is that out children, twenty years from now, will say “what foresight out parents and community had when they undertook this project” I would not want them to be facing another infrastructure upgrade of the schools because what we build how is insufficient, inflexible or worn out at that point. Join forces with other schools and PAC’s to work together, not against each other through this seismic upgrade process, Consider whether student groups can be accommodated at other schools during the construction period rather than in portables. Think of connections, working relationships and bonds that could be forged with other communities! 89. My son went to Gordon for 7 years and loved the undercover area with the built in hockey nets. Those are used year round by people literally of all ages. He went to daycare at Jericho Kids Club and it was so convenient for him and his parents. I would like to see more use made of the building for any interested community members. I hate the idea of the beautiful brick building going into a land fill. Shaughnessy Elementary was able to be left and renovated, why is there a problem with Gordon? The Outdoor space at Gordon is wonderful. The butterfly garden, the grassy sloped tree shaded field and the sports field are in use for many hours outside of school by the larger community. I work in the Burnaby School system and I can't think of a school there that is so attractive to the surrounding community. Please renovate rather than destroy. 90. While the Visioning Session was a very positive process, I believe the follow through on the ideas and principles espoused at that meeting has been weak. The translation from Vision to Program seems to be heavily filtered through the bias of the amorphous and incompletely revealed Area Standards of the Ministry. We are led to believe, by the VSB representatives, that these standards are under review, and have been for some time. Yet we are never privy to where they are now, or what they might become, whenever they are finalized. The programmers seem to be using some kind of a standard for their baseline, but what that standard is remains unclear and unavailable. Heritage value is an issue that is very important to many people, and yet it gets very little attention in these discussions. There is a value to our old buildings, both in a collective memory, and as examples of a continuing sustainability to our children. 91. Retention respects the heritage values and could retain the existing garden, trees and paying field. 92. N/A 93. A quality building is required for our children, one that is well-designed, has a history, has a proven record and is safe, along with being a heritage landmark in Kitsilano and the city. The energy and investment in the building should be put into updating the existing buildings and to make it safe. If all the wonderful heritage buildings, that are also schools, are simply viewed as development opportunities, we indeed as adults have failed the young generation. 94. The facts, as I understand them, are: we know that all three broad design options would ensure a high level of seismic safety to students and staff, ensuring that everyone was able to safely exit the building (and there are no guarantees for any of the design options about usability of the building after a major shock) we now have a MINIMUM of 15%-18% more space allocated to a renewed school, so original costings are no longer valid we now can compare 100% costs with 100% costs of whatever design option is chosen we now know (based on the UBC Renew experience, as just one example) that renovation is not only a far more sustainable option than a tear-down, but is cheaper no matter which choice is selected, there seems to be agreement that there needs to be a creative, cost-effective plan for locating students and staff off-site during construction (one that potentially involves the cooperation of the VSB, Parks Board, and the Mayor and Council) the Ministry of Education has encouraged us to “think outside the box” new schools are being built to last a far shorter lifespan than the current old schools many heritage points lost by General Gordon in the tallying up of its “heritage score” early in this process represent heritage-destroying moves that could be easily reversed (such as partially blocking windows, the awkward placement of the non-functional elevator, etc.). If such “heritage-destroying” (and much-ridiculed) moves were reversed, General Gordon would likely earn a significantly higher “heritage score” than it did in the original survey All of this means that all the issues raised during this process can be addressed by retaining the old building, likely gutting and redesigning the interior, and creating new spaces around it. Tearing down the old building, by contrast is an irresponsible choice on environmental, social, educational, and fiscal grounds. The only responsible choice is a “hybrid” design that takes the best of both worlds, both old and new, and could relatively easily be designed to accommodate the expressed needs of students, staff, and community and could effectively address all of the issues. As a community member who grew up near by General Gordon, I believe in the value of old buildings such as these in retaining the character of a community. A sense of history is vital to a learning environment, especially where the historical and the modern can coexist in the way that is suggested above. Thank you for listening to these concerns. 95. Firstly, the current architectural values of the existing building are notable, and would be lost through demolition and reconstruction of a new school. These architectural values include: daylighting, wide hallways, generous stairwells, and ample flexible space. For this reason, a renovation of the existing building is clearly the most desirable action. Secondly, this is a historic edifice in a neighbourhood which has sought to protect its best heritage values for decades. The sense of continuity and responsibility that can be communicated to kids through the rehabilitation of fine old community buildings such as this must not be underestimated. Thirdly, the current situating of the building on the north side of the site, with the playing fields along the south side, is excellent. This would be lost if a new building were place on the south side of the site, placing the new playing fields in cold shadow for much of the school year. Fourthly, as someone in the construction industry, it is obvious to me the current building has not been actively maintained for years, and in many respects, decades. Despite this neglect, it continues to survive with little permanent damage. I can guarantee that if a new building, using many current materials, were similarly neglected it would rapidly degrade. It appears that VSB concurs with this analysis as the expected lifespan of a new replacement school is just 25 years. This is a shocking waste of resources. Finally, the large amount of land dedicated to parking, which is shown as a key “benefit” of the “replacement school option”, is clearly a poor use of space. It is ironic that the replacement school design calls for a massive increase in parking, and a large reduction in flexible space for students. a) Unfortunately, I suspect that the Operational Budget is viewed as being different from the Capital Budget. Thus, the long-term savings generated by rehabilitating the existing building with its superior materials is not factored in to the financial decisions for the overall project. b) As a community, we should acknowledge that the inconvenience or disruption caused to us parents and kids for two years for a “renovated school” should not guide the decision-making toward the enduring result of definitely “inferior new school”. 96. Given that: we know that all three broad design options would ensure a high level of seismic safety to students and staff, ensuring that everyone was able to safely exit the building (and there are no guarantees for any of the design options about usability of the building after a major shock) we now have a MINIMUM of 15%-18% more space allocated to a renewed school, so original costings are no longer valid we now can compare 100% costs with 100% costs of whatever design option is chosen we now know (based on the UBC Renew experience, as just one example) that renovation is not only a far more sustainable option than a tear-down, but is cheaper no matter which choice is selected, there seems to be agreement that there needs to be a creative, cost-effective plan for locating students and staff off-site during construction (one that potentially involves the cooperation of the VSB, Parks Board, and the Mayor and Council) the Ministry of Education has encouraged us to “think outside the box” new schools are being built to last a far shorter lifespan than the current old schools many heritage points lost by General Gordon in the tallying up of its “heritage score” early in this process represent heritage-destroying moves that could be easily reversed (such as partially blocking windows, the awkward placement of the non-functional elevator, etc.). If such “heritage-destroying” (and much-ridiculed) moves were reversed, General Gordon would likely earn a significantly higher “heritage score” than it did in the original survey it seems clear to me (and many others) that the only responsible choice would be a “hybrid” design that takes the best of both worlds, both old and new, and could relatively easily be designed to accommodate the expressed needs of students, staff, and community and could effectively address all those issues that have been raised during this process thus far. To choose to demolish a huge old school and build a completely new one when all the issues raised can be addressed by retaining the old building, likely gutting and redesigning the interior, and creating new spaces around it, would seem to me environmentally, socially, educationally, and fiscally irresponsible. 97. N/A 98. Given that the safety objective can be delivered in a number of ways, I believe sustainability should be a top priority on this project. This is best achieved by retaining as much of the original architecture as possible (far less waste, and less needless production of new material). I am a parent of a new baby and live on the east side of Vancouver. Since many of our Vancouver schools will be subject to the same development process, I am looking to General Gordon as a potential model for the sustainable, child-friendly, community engaged school spaces of our future. I sincerely hope the final decision will accurately reflect the feedback received from this consultative process. 99. N/A 100. I like retaining history in a city that has so little architectural history but we need to get moving on addressing the seismic options. We need some design and costs but we have to move on this and the kids are in an unsafe building. 101. Randy Sharp (Shark and Diamond Landscape Architects) has been promoting redesign of Bayswater as a green street – please consider partnering with the city engineering to incorporate this natural infrastructure concept as a green street demonstration project. Involve a great landscape architect firm to redesign the interface between school property and the street public realm. 102. It would be good to incorporate space for kits daycare society, which needs a new home. 103. I support the new NCLD building as long as it is created sustainably (using as many existing building materials as possible). 104. During construction: I strongly support an office site location for the whole school during construction. It will be done faster and learning will be minimally disrupted. 105. N/A 106. Good open house. 107. I think schools need corridor and storage space. The new allocations don’t allow for that. Being able to pick- up young students right at the classroom door is important. Without generous hallways to allow for that. The needs of General Gordon will not be met. Finding a way to restore the school instead of knocking it down is important to me. 108. N/A 109. Let’s respect the historic building, and improve upon the legacy of past educational visionaries. The existing General Gordon building is most significant and deserving an upgrade, not partial or full replacement. We would be most foolish as a community and as a society for allowing demolition of General Gordon. 110. With my 3 children all having their children at the school of course I am concerned with the safety issue. A renovated building can be as safe as a new constructed school. Phasing of Seismic upgrades: I taught in Moberly school during eighteen months of seismic upgrading. The children in this large school (over 800) adjusted quickly and easily to changed classrooms, locations and moves in and out of portables. The daily teaching was carried on as usual, and the destruction was minimal for both teachers and students. Many teachers prefer portable to main school classrooms, and chose to teach in them even when offered an in- school classroom. 111. You get to keep a classy structure. The replacement option I dislike because the siting of the new school will be in the wrong place. i.e: north light and west light for classrooms are best and south side for fields. That’s pretty obvious. 112. Why is the VSB so blatantly lobbying for New school? What has this last 2 years NCLD process been about if we are right back to where we started (+18%) or 3%? As a tax payer I want VSB staff/trustees to meet with UBC Renew to see how UBC is addressing its aging infrastructure by renovating, not demolition, how UBC does full life cycle costing, please have a tour of the chemistry building – state of the art labs, 21st century facilities in a historically significant building. Why has this process been so convoluted and confusing to many? 113. Carbon costs should be part of the costing model. I want a school that inspires and that makes me proud to send my kids to public school. Reach higher. 114. N/A 115. What’s the deal with parking? This is crazy. With all respect to our hard working teachers, they can find parking on the street. 116. Other than knowing that GG need a new gym, I do not have a strong opinion about this school building. I see Queen Mary and Kitchener as being more attractive/distractive. However, GG has a large alumni as well as an active parent group who deserve to be listened to. In case of seismic upgrades to all our schools, precious green space and open outdoor spaces need to be protected.
Pages to are hidden for
"21st Century - Vancouver School Board"Please download to view full document