March 7, 200817 yr Little known fact... my mother, Martha, is a Plaintiff in this action. You can see more pics here: http://www.1917ghs.com/photos-of-the-1917-building/ Thomas/presOhio
March 7, 200817 yr Nope... no wife... I'm a single Dad raising two kids on my own (well, one is mostly raised, depending on who you ask).
April 27, 200817 yr Board asked to reconsider vote to tear down 1917 building; battle also in court Saturday, April 26, 2008 By Dana Wilson, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH After opening a new high-school building last fall, the Galion school board decided to demolish the old brick building that had been the town's high school since 1917. http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/04/26/galionhs.ART_ART_04-26-08_B3_RVA1M9L.html?sid=101
June 9, 200817 yr Razing of former Galion school OK'd Saturday, June 7, 2008 - 3:13 AM By Dana Wilson THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH The old Galion High School will be demolished, despite efforts by a group of residents to save the brick building and restore it. http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/06/07/galion.ART_ART_06-07-08_B2_T8AE8CT.html?sid=101
July 9, 200816 yr Suit to save old Galion High School ends with wrecking ball BY DAN CLUTTER • News Journal • July 8, 2008 GALION — Four Galion citizens suing the Board of Education filed a notice to dismiss the suit Monday in Crawford County Common Pleas Court. [email protected] 419-563-9224 http://mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080708/UPDATES01/80708015
July 9, 200816 yr Maybe I missed something in my cursory read of these stories, but what will become of the school site? Will one of the new schools go there? Will it be a vacant site?
July 11, 200816 yr ^^I think that it will just remain a vacant lot. ^I never got to see the school in person :cry:
February 24, 200916 yr That is so sad. I am so mad that this building wasn't saved, it looked to be in good condition and it had plans for its reuse.
March 4, 200916 yr You should see the people who design those jail-like suburban schools.....oh the stories I could tell. What a shame though. I wonder who salvaged/purchased the pediment.
March 4, 200916 yr I can't totally agree with you C-Dawg because the state doesn't hate old schools on purpose. It's more like a horrible accident. The OSFC has set criteria that they think a modern school needs. (everything from the amount of land the school can sit on, to how many computers in each classroom--but they don't say anything about the age of the building) And, if a school district wants the state's money, they have to build what the state tells them to. In most cases, renovating an old building so that it has what the state considers necessary is often cost prohibitive. I worked on Chaney High School in Youngstown. For some reason, they wanted to save that building. (even though it was built in 1953, and had little architectural character) Ultimately, the building was almost completely gutted to make way for everything an OSFC-funed school needed to have. Here is a link to my company's Chaney page. http://www.olsjam.com/portfolio/PK-12/chaney_high/chaney_high.htm I also have to disagree that the state has some hidden agenda to make all their new schools bland and prison-like. Here is our Harding Elementary School page: http://www.olsjam.com/portfolio/PK-12/harding_elem/harding_elem.htm I don't think these colors are very bland. Another reason many schools may appear bland is because the state dictates that the exterior materials be able to last for a very long time. So, the most cost-effective material choices are concrete block or brick. (We used EIFS on parts of Chaney, but even EIFS isn't allowed anymore, thank God!) The last thing to keep in mind is that most communities don't WANT flashy, architecturally significant buildings. I've talked with many people who want their schools to be as bland and have a few frills as possible. If the architects designing the schools actually provided something great, the community would throw a hissy-fit because of all the money that was "wasted." Now, getting back on topic... (a little) I think many of you would be even more depressed if I posted some of the Warren G. Harding (Warren City Schools) demolition pictures we have. The architect in my office who is in charge of that project actually strove to find the best angles to illustrate the destruction and loss.
March 4, 200916 yr You should see the people who design those jail-like suburban schools.....oh the stories I could tell. What a shame though. I wonder who salvaged/purchased the pediment. What are you trying to say? LOL. Has this district built all of their new schools yet? If not, the district might have saved the pediment to be incorporated into a new building.
March 4, 200916 yr The Ohio School Facilities Commission had as advisors too many former superintendents now on the payroll of architects/engineers and came up with ridiculous standards that were blatantly biased against renovation and in favor of cheap new-build. Then the state dangled money in front of desperate districts and coerced them into using these deeply flawed -- and perhaps corrupt -- standards.
March 4, 200916 yr That school is hideous and very suburban. I'm completely shocked that's on a website portfolio. Thanks for the seal of approval. :D This is probably why most of the new OSFC schools are so bland--no one will really like them, but no one will hate them either. Notice how many of the new schools sit far back from the street and have space for cars in front...they're not designed to have kids walk to school anymore. Nope. This change started when I was a kid in elementary school. (I'm 32 now, so do the math) Until I was in 5th grade, I walked to school--it took about 10 minutes. Then, they suddenly made us ride the bus. Our bus stop was within site of the school, but we had to ride the bus anyway. And what is so much better about that school that justifies 6.5 million taxpayer dollars? Do the students actually perform any better? I don't know if the students perform better. But the facilities are much better now. The old Harding elementary was a late 1930's yellow brick single-story structure with no real style, and was at the end of its lifespan. At least the new one was designed to respond to the surrounding neighborhood--with the "front porch" and the additional gables and changes in material to break up the scale. There also are many instances where renovating the old school would have been cheaper, but instead the people wanted a new, ugly building to pretend like they're improving education. You're right. I think it's called the two-thirds rule. If the cost of renovation is > 66% of the cost of a new building, a new building is what the OSFC would recommend. But, a community can appeal to save the old building if it's close. There is inherent bias against the old school buildings. This is more or less what I was saying from the start. I just disagree that it's on purpose. Every OSFC school, whether urban, suburban, or rural, has to follow the same guidlines--like area of playgrounds, sports fields, vehicular access, etc. Also, how can a state as economically destroyed as Ohio justify this absurd rebuilding program? The state's share of the money has been in place since the mid to late 90's. B. We spends millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars building ugly crap that we'll want to tear down in 20 years anyway. Don't be so optimistic. These schools are designed to last 50 years. C. The performance of the students doesn't change. But, at least the children attending old schools no longer have to sit in poorly lit, unheated (or overheated) classrooms with falling plaster. (don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more of the old school buildings retrofitted to meet modern standards) In the end, the intention of this school rebuilding program is to put all of Ohio's schools on the same level. So that there is no longer a disparity between rich suburban schools and poor urban (or rural) schools. The Ohio School Facilities Commission had as advisors too many former superintendents now on the payroll of architects/engineers and came up with ridiculous standards that were blatantly biased against renovation and in favor of cheap new-build. Then the state dangled money in front of desperate districts and coerced them into using these deeply flawed -- and perhaps corrupt -- standards. Can you explain why you think this system might be corrupt? Too many people already don't care about historic preservation, why would current or former school officials be any different? All they are concerned about is providing what they feel is needed for modern teaching facilities. That's why they are consulted with in the first place--they know what educators need.
March 4, 200916 yr I also have to disagree that the state has some hidden agenda to make all their new schools bland and prison-like. Here is our Harding Elementary School page: http://www.olsjam.com/portfolio/PK-12/harding_elem/harding_elem.htm I don't think these colors are very bland. That school is hideous and very suburban. I'm completely shocked that's on a website portfolio. It just proves my point. The state (sounds like both politicians and regular citizens) wants suburban crap. Notice how many of the new schools sit far back from the street and have space for cars in front...they're not designed to have kids walk to school anymore. They're designed more like a McDonald's. They're cartoonish. The elementary schools today look more like suburban doctor's offices than places of learning (the high schools are more jail-like, complete with the high tech security and all). If kids feel like they're going to the dentist's office every morning, they're not going to be happy students. And what is so much better about that school that justifies 6.5 million taxpayer dollars? Do the students actually perform any better? The last thing to keep in mind is that most communities don't WANT flashy, architecturally significant buildings. I've talked with many people who want their schools to be as bland and have a few frills as possible. If the architects designing the schools actually provided something great, the community would throw a hissy-fit because of all the money that was "wasted." There also are many instances where renovating the old school would have been cheaper, but instead the people wanted a new, ugly building to pretend like they're improving education. I agree with you 100% C-Dawg! When I saw the picture of the school in Youngstown I couldn't believe it. It looks like it was done by the same "architect" who "designed" the school that replaced my old elementary school! As a matter of fact, all the new schools in town look exactly alike. (but then again, going to my old school was kind of like "going to the dentist" anyway...ha ha...): http://www.painesville-city.k12.oh.us/district_Photogallery.aspx?CategoryId=96&ImageId=2066&schoolid=0 http://www.mainstreetpainesville.org/
March 5, 200916 yr So why is the Woodward rebuild the exception to the rule these days? Why can't the other new school buildings follow this land use principle? Congrats to Collaborative Inc. for at least maintaining urbanity. Still, the old school looked a hell of a lot more attractive than the new one... I can't really answer your questions. These issues are bigger than the state funded schools, though. You congratulate the architect, but I applaud the school district for allowing the architect to proceed with the design.
March 5, 200916 yr I really don't want to dwell on this topic, but as someone who has been involved with many districts around the state in terms of both advocacy for reusing existing buildings and preserving replaced buildings -- and being one of those on the committee advocating for the reuse of the Galion High School building (and being an alum), I can share the following brief statements: 1. The “2/3 rule” was part of an initial set of OSFC guidelines that were highly skewed toward new construction. The influence of the construction lobby was highly visible from the start. 2. While the Ohio School Facilities Commission did make a public stance change from the “2/3 rule” to a “2/3” guideline, we have been told that it has continued to make renovations difficult to pursue. Traditional unfounded biases against preservation persist. Almost no Districts have chosen renovation of traditional buildings. 3. I served for a time on a panel that recommended changes to those guidelines to the current administration. At the very first meeting of that panel, the head of the OSFC announced that he thought that as a rule all traditional buildings were poorly suited for modern educational needs. 4. In that same meeting, he shared his hope that the OSFC process would remain a permanent part of state government, as the current buildings have life expectancies which are substantially less than many of the buildings which they are replacing. 5. The OSFC subsidizes demolition for replaced buildings, removing potential taxpayer assets at taxpayer expense. 6. In the case of the Galion buildings, the District turned down at least $100,000 on the table for one building -- and not only never advertised the buildings for sale, they were never appraised. At least one developer had previously valued one of the District’s buildings at $300,000 to $400,000 for adaptive reuse. The net loss to the District was at least $500,000, with a much greater loss long-term. 7. Over 1,500 residents and alumni petitioned the Board to allow for the proposed project, yet these signatures were dismissed by the Board as “…being the product of emotion.” The Board was never publicly provided accurate private renovation numbers by the District administration. 8. The pediment of the building was saved to be placed onto the façade of a hoped-for future auditorium. The demolition itself removed a turn-key auditorium that had been maintained for 90 years. Even before the recent economic crisis, the best scenario for such a new auditorium was 5-10 years away. Now, the most likely scenario is that more than a decade of Galion students will not have the benefit of performing arts facilities. 9. While the Galion High School building was being demolished, the Board of Education actually pursued an operating levy! In that special election, which also occurred prior to the recent economic crisis, the levy experienced what may well have been the most substantial defeat in Galion election history. They have not returned to the ballot since. 10. The beautiful former Bucyrus High School, built in the early 1920s, will open this coming Fall as the new Bucyrus Elementary School. When the time came for deciding the direction of their building program, the community told their Board of Education, "We don't want to be another Galion!" When that building opens, it will be just as technologically-equipped and "modern" as the cement block facilities rising in Ohio farmfields.
March 5, 200916 yr I'm sorry to keep dragging this out. I'm just offering my perspective from the other side. I hate to see old buildings like Gallion HS (or Warren Harding HS in Warren) get torn down for a new building of lesser quality, just like everyone else here. 2. While the Ohio School Facilities Commission did make a public stance change from the “2/3 rule” to a “2/3” guideline, we have been told that it has continued to make renovations difficult to pursue. Traditional unfounded biases against preservation persist. Almost no Districts have chosen renovation of traditional buildings. Renovating Chaney HS was a real big PITA. For example, when they removed the old windows, they had to abate the asbestos in the CAULKING! All of the floor tile had to be removed by an asbestos crew. And, believe it or not, this school already went through an asbestos removal program in the past. This was just the stuff that was deemed safe the first time. (because it wasn't going to be disturbed) People these days panic easily when they hear the word "asbestos" so that's probably one of the reasons so few schools are renovated. 3. I served for a time on a panel that recommended changes to those guidelines to the current administration. At the very first meeting of that panel, the head of the OSFC announced that he thought that as a rule all traditional buildings were poorly suited for modern educational needs. This is only a guess, but he was probably referring to classroom size.(among other things) The standard classroom size today is 900 SF. But, they are often smaller in older buildings. 4. In that same meeting, he shared his hope that the OSFC process would remain a permanent part of state government, as the current buildings have life expectancies which are substantially less than many of the buildings which they are replacing. As I said earlier, these new buildings are only expected to last 50 years before needing replaced. :roll: 5. The OSFC subsidizes demolition for replaced buildings, removing potential taxpayer assets at taxpayer expense. 6. In the case of the Galion buildings, the District turned down at least $100,000 on the table for one building -- and not only never advertised the buildings for sale, they were never appraised. At least one developer had previously valued one of the District’s buildings at $300,000 to $400,000 for adaptive reuse. The net loss to the District was at least $500,000, with a much greater loss long-term. There is some sort of state law that, when a district sells a building, they have to offer the building to Charter schools first. Obviously, charter schools are financially damaging to state run districts, so it's often better for the districts to just demo the building and try to sell or reuse the land. The OSFC subsidizes demolition to prevent a district from being stuck with a vacant building. There were old schools in Youngstown that had sat vacant for years before the city finally razed them because the district couldn't afford to. 8. The pediment of the building was saved to be placed onto the façade of a hoped-for future auditorium. The demolition itself removed a turn-key auditorium that had been maintained for 90 years. Even before the recent economic crisis, the best scenario for such a new auditorium was 5-10 years away. Now, the most likely scenario is that more than a decade of Galion students will not have the benefit of performing arts facilities. As I think you're aware, the WHHS auditorium was supposed to be saved. But, the district decided that the "cafetorium" was good enough, and didn't want to be saddled with the additional maintenance the original auditorium would require. So, the district compromised and made sure no one would be happy. They saved the facade and removed the auditorium. Now they have a building that they still have to maintain, and it's completely useless. 10. The beautiful former Bucyrus High School, built in the early 1920s, will open this coming Fall as the new Bucyrus Elementary School. When the time came for deciding the direction of their building program, the community told their Board of Education, "We don't want to be another Galion!" When that building opens, it will be just as technologically-equipped and "modern" as the cement block facilities rising in Ohio farmfields. Yes, it can be done. I just wish it would be done more often. But, many people in Ohio still think new is better.
March 5, 200916 yr Akron ran into a similar problem with my former Elementary school, Portage Path. It's a beautiful old building, but sadly, it's not very practical without a total gutting and red-o, one which would cost 50% more than to build a new building. A lot of the elementary schools are having this problem- they don't function as well as they used to meet govt standards. Fortunately, not all of Akron's buildings are meeting this fate. Some of the Middle Schools are being folded into the High Schools, and those buildings are being saved.
March 5, 200916 yr Just a few quick reactions: I'm sorry to keep dragging this out. I'm just offering my perspective from the other side. I hate to see old buildings like Gallion HS (or Warren Harding HS in Warren) get torn down for a new building of lesser quality, just like everyone else here. Renovating Chaney HS was a real big PITA. For example, when they removed the old windows, they had to abate the asbestos in the CAULKING! All of the floor tile had to be removed by an asbestos crew. And, believe it or not, this school already went through an asbestos removal program in the past. This was just the stuff that was deemed safe the first time. (because it wasn't going to be disturbed) People these days panic easily when they hear the word "asbestos" so that's probably one of the reasons so few schools are renovated. No doubt it was costly. The OSFC guidelines mandate replacement, no matter the quality or condition of the existing windows. As far as asbestos abatement is concerned, as is typical with renovation, encapsulation provides a cost-effective alternative. With demolition, full abatement is required. This is only a guess, but he was probably referring to classroom size.(among other things) The standard classroom size today is 900 SF. But, they are often smaller in older buildings. He was not referring specifically to classroom size at the time; it was a blanket statement without reservations. As I said earlier, these new buildings are only expected to last 50 years before needing replaced. :roll: The numbers used at that time of that discussion were actually 30-40 years -- meaning that at the time that the OSFC finally reaches District #600, it will be nearing the time to start again. There is some sort of state law that, when a district sells a building, they have to offer the building to Charter schools first. Obviously, charter schools are financially damaging to state run districts, so it's often better for the districts to just demo the building and try to sell or reuse the land. The OSFC subsidizes demolition to prevent a district from being stuck with a vacant building. There were old schools in Youngstown that had sat vacant for years before the city finally razed them because the district couldn't afford to. I am aware of that law -- and, at least in Galion's case, the legal advice they received was that they had to offer them pre-demolition to any charter school, which they did. Because the demolition subsidy money cannot be used for any other purpose, districts do not have the option to deal creatively with buildings. That shared, Galion's were the subject of bona fide offers. As I think you're aware, the WHHS auditorium was supposed to be saved. But, the district decided that the "cafetorium" was good enough, and didn't want to be saddled with the additional maintenance the original auditorium would require. So, the district compromised and made sure no one would be happy. They saved the facade and removed the auditorium. Now they have a building that they still have to maintain, and it's completely useless. As any musician or artist can tell you, a "cafetorium" is only the poorest substitute for a stand-alone auditorium... and being "saddled with additional maintenance" is a euphemism used by districts for failing to adequately support the arts. I dare say that WHHS' athletic facilities, whatever they are, require more maintenance and upkeep than their new cafetorium. Yes, it can be done. I just wish it would be done more often. But, many people in Ohio still think new is better. We certainly agree on that one. The first time we met with the OSFC, many, many years ago, the then-Director exclaimed, "Our problem isn't with the folks who are required to build new because the 2/3 rule is met -- almost all of the lobbying we received is from districts whose buildings do not meet the 66% threshold, but want a new building." That shared, it is important to continue to emphasize the massive waste of taxpayer dollars in the OSFC program.
March 5, 200916 yr This is more or less what I was saying from the start. I just disagree that it's on purpose. Every OSFC school, whether urban, suburban, or rural, has to follow the same guidlines--like area of playgrounds, sports fields, vehicular access, etc. Fair enough. I just think there is a very suburban mentality dominating the entire discussion. There's no reason they could not at least have the new schools interact with the street. All blacktop could be put behind the school, etc. What is so wrong with kids walking to school? Is our society just ready to throw in the towel on that? I think back to the old Bowsher High School in Toledo. It was an ugly 70's-looking building, but it still interacted with South Detroit Avenue. There was no blacktop in front of the school. By contrast, the new Bowsher High School (which actually does look better in terms of architecture) has blacktop in front. There was a different mentality at work in terms of land use. Most of the design and land use principles have gone out the window. :oops: Luckily, the TPS rebuild hasn't been as bad as in other cities in Ohio. While it sucks Woodward High lost its historic building, the new one at least maintains urbanity. It's being built to the street, and there's no parking in front. There are good sidewalks in front of the school promoting pedestrian activity. There's no reason other new school buildings can't follow this principle. The building itself can't hold a candle to the one it's replacing, but at least the new Woodward is still functionally urban: So why is the Woodward rebuild the exception to the rule these days? Why can't the other new school buildings follow this land use principle? Congrats to Collaborative Inc. for at least maintaining urbanity. Still, the old school looked a hell of a lot more attractive than the new one... You're right, the school you've highlighted looks fairly decent as new schools go, but again, it's outrageous what's happening to the old ones. Not having been back to Ohio for centuries, until I started reading this thread I thought this school replacement program was just some wacky, pie-in-the-sky scheme limited to the misguided "officials" who govern my hometown. It's very sad. So this will give me a good opportunity to say goodbye to my nearly 90-year old high school which (unless someone gives it a last minute reprieve for a reuse--possibly nearby Lake Erie College, so I've heard) will graduate its final class this coming spring. PS--there's an ugly wing from the 50's and expanded in the 80's--not shown, to the left of the picture--that probably should have been "torn down" before it was even built, so to speak... (upper right window was chemistry--not my finest moment. Then again, none of them were! lol): http://www.mainstreetpainesville.org/
March 31, 200916 yr We are fighting the Board of Education in Hillsboro. Our school has existed since '35. We want the board to save it for reuse. They are not willing. Reading this thread has pointed out some avenues to avoid, since they have not worked for others. I just hound out today that we cannot remove our board members because we don't have the right kind of city government. It appears that a law suit is only capable of postponing the inevitable. Anyone have suggestions of what might work???
March 31, 200916 yr ^Off the top of my head, it sounds like a petition would work best. (hope it's not too late?) But if you can provide, say, 1000 signatures of people who will be angry if the school is demolished, the board might be more inclined to listen, if they plan on seeking reelection, or plan to ask for any kind of levy in the near future.
February 13, 201312 yr ^^I think that it will just remain a vacant lot. ^I never got to see the school in person :cry: This was actually my high school. It's weird to see empty land there...in addition to nearly every elementary school and the middle school.
Create an account or sign in to comment