New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Feb 2006, 13:08

I'm bothered but I'm not challenging it. Let's get on with the discussion in a neighbourly manner.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Feb 2006, 13:10

Stephen McIntyre wrote:I'm bothered but I'm not challenging it. Let's get on with the discussion in a neighbourly manner.

Ditto.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Feb 2006, 15:16

From today's EN:

Relocate pupils to build new schools on old sites

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Feb 2006, 15:35

Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN:

Relocate pupils to build new schools on old sites

I wonder how a "Keep The School Where It Is" campaign leaflet would look? What would the demands be?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Feb 2006, 15:40

Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN:

Relocate pupils to build new schools on old sites

The salient point for me from this Park Avenue-dweller's letter :

"The children's education will not suffer with careful planning by the authorities"

The other one has bells on it. Spot the distorted logic here - not only can one provide one's self with a convenient moral get-out (the disruption is not related to my opposition) but also a safety clause - in that if their education *is* disrupted, it's the fault of the authorities!

They didn't shut the old Royal Infirmary until they had not only built the new one but worked out how to transfer the patients. Following this model, the old hospital would have been shut and the sick forced to hang out on the meadows while they did the refurbishment!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Feb 2006, 16:00

Dadaist wrote:
They didn't shut the old Royal Infirmary until they had not only built the new one but worked out how to transfer the patients. Following this model, the old hospital would have been shut and the sick forced to hang out on the meadows while they did the refurbishment!

Superb analogy. I just wished someone in our community would come forward and relate how hellish. damaging and academically disruptive decanting can be. I know that the experience is out there.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Feb 2006, 16:12

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN:

Relocate pupils to build new schools on old sites
I wonder how a "Keep The School Where It Is" campaign leaflet would look? What would the demands be?

The leaflet itself would have to be printed on existing leaflets, with the old text crossed out or tipp-ex'd. Because there's nothing wrong with using old leaflets.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 24 Feb 2006, 16:44

Much of what is in 'this Park Avenue-dweller's letter' is what many people feel about losing green space.
As for decant...how about using the old Holyrood High school?
When the new Holyrood school opens, we will have an actual, real school, and it could then be utilised while Portobello High School is demolished. How about getting the folks that worked on the Scottish Parliament to work on this. They are pretty expert at creating "world class" buildings on wee sites, (with the added bonus that cost then becomes totally irrelevant)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Feb 2006, 16:52

bbbrown wrote:How about getting the folks that worked on the Scottish Parliament to work on this. They are pretty expert at creating "world class" buildings on wee sites, (with the added bonus that cost then becomes totally irrelevant)

I have to raise an objection - my baby will be 2 shortly (must stop calling her a baby some time) and I would like the school to be finished before it's time for her to leave it!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Feb 2006, 17:02

bbbrown wrote:Much of what is in 'this Park Avenue-dweller's letter' is what many people feel about losing green space.
As for decant...how about using the old Holyrood High school?
When the new Holyrood school opens, we will have an actual, real school, and it could then be utilised while Portobello High School is demolished.

bb. you appear to be quite comfortable, indeed keen on keeping the school on its existing site. In your view and/or opinion what makes the existing site suitable as a site for a modern school? What facilities/qualities does this site possess that other sites don't?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Feb 2006, 17:08

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
bbbrown wrote:Much of what is in 'this Park Avenue-dweller's letter' is what many people feel about losing green space.
As for decant...how about using the old Holyrood High school?
When the new Holyrood school opens, we will have an actual, real school, and it could then be utilised while Portobello High School is demolished.
bb. you appear to be quite comfortable, indeed keen on keeping the school on its existing site. In your view and/or opinion what makes the existing site suitable as a site for a modern school? What facilities/qualities does this site possess that other sites don't?

Stephen -

Since when does the status quo have to be actively defended? Is it not up to you to prove that the site is too small?

This is an argumentative technique I seriously question - a bit like holding a gun up to somebody and forcing them to justify why you should not shoot them, and if they can't then saying the blame is theirs. Aesop had a lot to say about this.

I would say that it was up to us to be making the case *for* the new site - and be highly specific in terms of facilities and qualities, rather than making our case the fact that the opposition couldn't make a decent enough case.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Feb 2006, 17:24

Stephen McIntyre wrote:I just wished someone in our community would come forward and relate how hellish. damaging and academically disruptive decanting can be. I know that the experience is out there.

Dave Simpson is your man. Shall we ask him?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Feb 2006, 17:50

I disagree totally. We are about to invest Â£30M+ in 2 educational facilities. We should be providing the best facilities we can with the money. There is no condition that says we must rebuild on the existing site.

The decision to site the school where it is was a poor one. Tower blocks were in vogue, which was the only reason the site was deemed large enough or appropriate. Do we learn or do we make the same mistake again.

Imagine that I am the Director of Education or a concerned parent of a PHS pupil. You are the person that has to convince me where the school should go. The case for moving the schools to Portobello Park is apparent and has been laid out in full here on POL.

What is the educational and environmental case for rebuilding the largest secondary school in Edinburgh on the smallest site of any secondary school in the city? Convince me.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 24 Feb 2006, 17:50

is size really that important, or is it what you do with it?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Feb 2006, 17:51

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:I just wished someone in our community would come forward and relate how hellish. damaging and academically disruptive decanting can be. I know that the experience is out there.
Dave Simpson is your man. Shall we ask him?

Is he the deputy head of Firhill, that was recently decanted?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Feb 2006, 18:06

bbbrown wrote: As for decant...how about using the old Holyrood High school?
When the new Holyrood school opens, we will have an actual, real school, and it could then be utilised while Portobello High School is demolished.

That might be possible. But it ignores the basic funding problem.

As things stand, without a decant, significant development is required to fund a new school. Using Holyrood may be possible (though disruptive and I expect unpopular at Holyrood) to avoid significant decant costs. But it doesn't magically generate Â£35+million.

You still have to fund the construction. And redveloping on the existing site will mean even higher construction costs. You could do it. You'd have a school too large for it's site by any normal standards and the building would probably be compromised in terms of function, but it'd be possible. But it'd have to be high rise.

And high-rise construction, per m2, is more expensive than low rise. High rise is inherently expensive. Over 4 storeys all kinds of additional structural, safety and services issues begin to kick in. It usually only makes sense to build high when land prices or returns are exceptionally high. For a school it makes little sense economically let alone in terms of usability.

So for a given floor area a high-rise school will be more expensive than a low rise.

And given the funding situation that means more development.

Where?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Feb 2006, 18:22

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Is he the deputy head of Firhill, that was recently decanted?

He is indeed. I will ask him if he would like to outline his experience of a decant for the benefit of those who are contemplating this for our children.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 24 Feb 2006, 18:25

is the current PHS site really too small? who says it is?
it is of dubious design, there is a lot of wasted space for example.
i would at least like to see actual drawings of what is possible/what is not possible on the site...and actual costings etc...rather than folks on a censored forum saying this that and the other.
i would like the freightliner terminal site to be seriously considered, it may be problematic, but surely worthy of looking at.
in thirty or forty years time people may well look at this wee episode and consider we were mental for building on green space.
lets get this right and not just plump for the easiest/quickest fix.....

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Feb 2006, 20:49

This recent letter from Councillor Ricky Henderson in the EN may be of interest to bbbrown and others who doubt the Council's committment to green space. It also contains other information pertinent to the proposal under discussion:

Green space is a real priority

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Feb 2006, 21:16

bbbrown wrote: is the current PHS site really too small? who says it is?.....

Bb, check out the QandA from the council a few pages back . Then try applying common sense whilst considering that we have the largest number of pupils on the smallest space.

bbbrown wrote: rather than folks on a censored forum saying this that and the other. .....

Bb this is a debate. Try and think of it as a group of people in the pub discussing an issue that is important to them all. There is a certain amount of social grace involved. If, during the course of conversation, you are asked a direct question. It is polite to at least acknowledge that question and perhaps have a go at answering it. So far, you just answer question with question or a reasonable attempt at humour. Let me try once again and please do me the courtesy of responding.

bb. you appear to be quite comfortable, indeed keen on keeping the school on its existing site. In your view and/or opinion what makes the existing site suitable as a site for a modern school? What facilities/qualities does this site possess that other sites don't?

and

bbbrown wrote: lets get this right and not just plump for the easiest/quickest fix.....

Even if the easiest and quickest also happens to be the best?

Edited by Stephen

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Feb 2006, 21:29

bbbrown wrote:i would like the freightliner terminal site to be seriously considered, it may be problematic, but surely worthy of looking at.
in thirty or forty years time people may well look at this wee episode and consider we were mental for building on green space.

Building on the freightliner terminal would require more housing development and more loss of green space. Accquiring the site would represent a huge additional cost. Even if it 's under-used that site has significant commercial potential, and potential is a very important factor in land value. And a significant part of it is in use. There are industrial units and stuff. Use compulsory purchase to buy that and you'll have to pay a cost approximate to those people going and buying land elsewhere and building replacement buildings (maybe subject to a bit of depreciation).

Your talking millions and millions of pounds. On top of the cost of just building the schools. And that means millions and millons of pounds worth of additional housing development to fund the project.

Even if it was desirable to locate the school there, which I'm very skeptical about given the bypass and the railway, from a financial point of view it would be utterly absurd.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 24 Feb 2006, 21:51

All the pupils from PHS could not be decanted into HRHS because about 1/3 of Holyrood pupils will be decanted as their blocks are being demolished in the first stage of the building process. The remaining 2/3 would not house all the PHS pupils. Furthermore, this area is needed for parking, playing fields etc., How could you fit 1400 pupils into a space designed for 800 pupils?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Feb 2006, 21:58

If, during the course of conversation, you are asked a direct question. It is polite to at least acknowledge that question and perhaps have a go at answering it. So far, you just answer question with question or a smart assed comment. Let me try once again:

bb. you appear to be quite comfortable, indeed keen on keeping the school on its existing site. In your view and/or opinion what makes the existing site suitable as a site for a modern school? What facilities/qualities does this site possess that other sites don't?

That's not a question, it's what Admiral Ackbar would say was a trap.

You should at least be defining what is unsuitable and asking for rebuttal, not this.

Post by **wangi** » 24 Feb 2006, 22:01

I'm glad the possibility of the HLR/railway site has been raised and is now getting at least consideration. In an ideal world it makes much more sense to develop a brown field site rather than a green field one, however I'm happy to let those know more than me look into things and if it's a no go then fair enough. And the site certainly does have access issues.

However remember that the cost in acquiring the land would be offset by not having to buy land for a new golf course. And Seanie, you need to take a walk through the site (I did last week) and ponder what it's really worth...

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Feb 2006, 22:17

But the land proposed for the golf-course is greenbelt.

However valuable greenbelt land is in other ways, commercially it's cheap as chips.

Ugly industrial brown-fields, however unlovely, are commercially far more valuable.

You're not comparing like with like. And you're ignoring the whole funding issue.

Say you don't buy the golf-course and decide to build on the brown-field site. Even accepting that the cost of site accquisition is equal to that of the greenbelt land, there's still a Â£35 million plus black hole in your finances.

How do you finance the schools?

Post by **wangi** » 24 Feb 2006, 22:35

seanie wrote:How do you finance the schools?

For starters there's still housing on the existing sites.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Feb 2006, 22:40

That might give you Â£12 million. You're still way short.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Feb 2006, 22:49

wangi wrote:
seanie wrote:How do you finance the schools?
For starters there's still housing on the existing sites.

But that's already part of the current proposals.

As I said before let's leave aside the freightliner/greenbelt purchase issue. The greenbelt land is much cheaper but then it's a much larger site. Maybe they would work out at a similar price (though I'd be suprised).

So taking that out of the equation we still, under the current proposals, require housing on the existing site and on a sizeable chunk of the golf course.

By what miracle will the existing site alone suddenly generate sufficient funds?

Or were you only planning to build 1/3 of a high school?

Post by **wangi** » 24 Feb 2006, 23:17

Guys, as I said:

however I'm happy to let those know more than me look into things and if it's a no go then fair enough.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, I don't pretend to have any. However I don't think it's an idea which can be simply dismissed - if it can be made to work somehow then our community will be much richer. We'd still have a large park (I couldn't care less about a golf course, I'd rather it was a park), new schools and an eyesore transformed.

EDIT: Of interest maybe - http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/ (and yeah, I know that's England)

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 24 Feb 2006, 23:34

I have no objection to considering alternatives. But it's pointless unless founded in reality. And the most pressing reality, is funding.

Unless an alternative source can be found the only likely way to fund new schools is through sale of assets and development.

If that is unacceptable then forget new schools.

If it is acceptable the questions become how much and where?

Any alternatives that don't face up to those questions don't honestly address the issue.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Feb 2006, 00:02

wangi wrote:Of interest maybe - http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/ (and yeah, I know that's England)

As it says;

Brownfield land is often more expensive to develop than greenfield

.

What developers absolutely love are big, flatish, greenfield sites. They're straightforward. They're easy. And straighforward and easy translate into comparatively cheap to build upon. That means maximum profits at the end of the day. That's also why all kinds of regulations and planning targets have to be enforced to encourage developers to use brownfield land instead of greenfield, and to protect the greenbelt.

By the same token, if you're funding a public project via development, and you wish to keep development to a minimum, then you should also seek the straightforward and easy. Because it keeps costs down and hence minimises development.

That's not to say the cheapest option is best. Quality costs. But to be serious any alternatives have to recognise real-world cost constraints.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Feb 2006, 00:42

As somebody said earlier (sorry, forgotten who!) - why does the school have to be as big as it is? Castlebrae have a school with hardly any pupils in it. PHS could be made smaller to accommodate less pupils who could then go to a half empty school thereby taking up a smaller footprint.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Feb 2006, 11:44

Dadaist wrote:
If, during the course of conversation, you are asked a direct question. It is polite to at least acknowledge that question and perhaps have a go at answering it. So far, you just answer question with question or a smart assed comment. Let me try once again:

bb. you appear to be quite comfortable, indeed keen on keeping the school on its existing site. In your view and/or opinion what makes the existing site suitable as a site for a modern school? What facilities/qualities does this site possess that other sites don't?
That's not a question, it's what Admiral Ackbar would say was a trap.

You should at least be defining what is unsuitable and asking for rebuttal, not this.

Dada, its not a trap, don't be silly. Its a perfectly valid question. If I were asked the same question regarding the Portobello Park site I could answer it easily. Do you mean that its a trap because the answer is:none? If you are still unhappy with the phrasing,feel free to modify the question to find the answer.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Feb 2006, 11:53

wangi wrote:Guys, as I said:
however I'm happy to let those know more than me look into things and if it's a no go then fair enough.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, I don't pretend to have any. However I don't think it's an idea which can be simply dismissed - if it can be made to work somehow then our community will be much richer. We'd still have a large park (I couldn't care less about a golf course, I'd rather it was a park), new schools and an eyesore transformed.

EDIT: Of interest maybe - http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/ (and yeah, I know that's England)

Wangi, I totally agree that we need to explorethe siting of the school in the Freightliner terminal. I mean it. If the children could have playing fielkds and room to breathe. If the costs were the same or similar and the timescale was not too far apart. Then a developed FT site would be a real bonus and the park would be saved. I could def support that.

Having said that I wouldn't be surprised if the entire monies that come from the sale of the existing school site where swallowed up by the cost of land acquistion.

I have no experinece of CPO. Seanie if COEC forced some of the businesses out of the site, would they have to fund their relocation, purchase new land etc?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Feb 2006, 11:57

Epykat wrote:As somebody said earlier (sorry, forgotten who!) - why does the school have to be as big as it is? Castlebrae have a school with hardly any pupils in it. PHS could be made smaller to accommodate less pupils who could then go to a half empty school thereby taking up a smaller footprint.

seanie wrote:I have no objection to considering alternatives. But it's pointless unless founded in reality.

Saved me a bit of typing.

Epykat, so your solution is to send, say 700 children on 190 days of the year out of the catchment area? To avoid sending 120 golfers on a 2 minute drive?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

school

Re: school

Re: school

Re: school

size

Re: school

school

Re: school

Re: school