Comment 74491

By BrianE (anonymous) | Posted February 16, 2012 at 14:07:40 in reply to Comment 74465

I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning. A new building will have lower maintenance costs during its lifetime than a 100 year old building I agree with you.

And yet a neglected 100 year old building is still more reliable than a new one? I'm not sure how you hold those two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time.

And what happens if a renovated 100 year old building goes to shit? That's a possibility and one with greater chance of occurrence since we have already agreed that new buildings are easier to maintain.

What companies are you thinking of that would want to lease office space in a school. Is there a school board in the world that is ok with such a close interaction between teenagers and working adults sharing such close quarters. Those questions could already have an answer.

I also have to disagree with your final point. The bottom line is that these schools are entirely replaceable and are in fact liabilities not assets to the school board. That is true of every school that has ever been built. From the very second that the building is complete it costs money to maintain and it decreases in value until the day it no longer makes sense to use it.

Ok, last point.

Is there something specific about these 3 buildings that enable student programs and community involvement. Is there something about these programs that prevent them from being carried out within a different building. It needs to be shown that the programs and activities require these 3 buildings in order to perform properly. I'm not sure that can be done.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds