A building cluster at Van Nuys-Sherman Oaks Park area - good location to raze and then build a high school? (Los Angeles: apartments, rental market)

[Vicman]

Originally Posted by squeezeboxgal

I shouldn't speak for Sandy, but what I think she's saying is that her kids got a good education but that she was glad, nonetheless, to have them graduate because she no longer had safety concerns to worry about.

And, again, I ask -- why is this of such interest to you?

1. It's possible she's saying that as well. AFAIK in magnet schools the surrounding neighborhood does not matter (maybe unless one has to walk) - But Grant's a neighborhood school.

2. I explained in point one (Post #9 @ 02:11 AM U.S. Central Time, May 2, 2009), which I edited in after initially making the post

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by Vicman

I'm personally more comfortable with razing apartments and condos as the residents aren't as attached to them - Dallas ISD did that to build Conrad High School to serve the Vickery Meadow community

The difference is that in Texas land is more affordable. The people renting these places are probably doing so so their kids have a halfway decent chance at a good education, because the only affordable houses are in the worst neighborhoods with the worst schools, and even then they cost more than a very nice house in major Texas cities and suburbs(200k will get you a nice house around Houston, it will get you a 70 year old hovel in the worst ghetto in LA, and you'll have to share it with roaches while having bars on your windows). Rent in Dallas and Houston is laughable, while wages aren't all that less. Basically, you're taking people that can't afford housing, in an area that is not filled with apartments and basically built out and putting them on the street. Many will be forced to totally uproot, since there will be that much less supply in an area with a fixed supply already. Eminent Domain doesn't compensate the renters either, since they don't own the property. In Texas, you can move on the outskirts of town and find a brand new apt for a good rate and probably find it in an area with decent schools. It doesn't work that way in LA.

[Vicman]

1. The points about the LA housing market are pretty relevant - I knew housing prices were more expensive in LA, but I kind of forgot the degree so. This leads to 2.

2. Do these complexes specifically advertise their zoned schools? If so that is an indication that a significant number of people are using the apartments to get good schools. If so, then that makes the location not as good of a choice. In Houston there are some complexes which advertise "Zoned to Bellaire Schools" to make it clear they are zoned to the well-renowned high school.

3. If LAUSD could build upward, how much space would it need? I would like to see the square footage of Stuyvesant High School in New York, which has a 10-story building for a 3,000-student campus. If LAUSD could get traction to build a 10-story building, it would have to clear a lot less land. Since New York is different from LA, I wonder how a 10-story school building would be designed to meet LA-style standards.

Originally Posted by bhcompy

The difference is that in Texas land is more affordable. The people renting these places are probably doing so so their kids have a halfway decent chance at a good education, because the only affordable houses are in the worst neighborhoods with the worst schools, and even then they cost more than a very nice house in major Texas cities and suburbs(200k will get you a nice house around Houston, it will get you a 70 year old hovel in the worst ghetto in LA, and you'll have to share it with roaches while having bars on your windows). Rent in Dallas and Houston is laughable, while wages aren't all that less. Basically, you're taking people that can't afford housing, in an area that is not filled with apartments and basically built out and putting them on the street. Many will be forced to totally uproot, since there will be that much less supply in an area with a fixed supply already. Eminent Domain doesn't compensate the renters either, since they don't own the property. In Texas, you can move on the outskirts of town and find a brand new apt for a good rate and probably find it in an area with decent schools. It doesn't work that way in LA.

[Dark of the Moon]

Originally Posted by Vicman

3. If LAUSD could build upward, how much space would it need? I would like to see the square footage of Stuyvesant High School in New York, which has a 10-story building for a 3,000-student campus. If LAUSD could get traction to build a 10-story building, it would have to clear a lot less land.

Few of NYC's high schools are 10-story buildings housing 3,000 students. In fact, the majority of the city's large high schools have been broken up into much smaller schools. This was done because the larger schools were consistently failing to meet AYP goals mandated by NCLB. Stuyvesant succeeds because it's extremely selective and has a highly motivated student body.

Using it as an example for any "regular" high school is apples vs. oranges.

[Vicman]

I was referring to the physical facility, not the organization of the educational structure. What I meant by 10 stories is that by building upwards LAUSD would buy less property and therefore displace fewer apartment dwellers.

In NYC many of the "small schools" are grouped together in large buildings; i.e. one campus houses maybe four small schools.

Also Manhattan is not the same as Bronx, etc. I just felt that using Stuyvesant's particular structure could be useful in this case.

Originally Posted by squeezeboxgal

Few of NYC's high schools are 10-story buildings housing 3,000 students. In fact, the majority of the city's large high schools have been broken up into much smaller schools. This was done because the larger schools were consistently failing to meet AYP goals mandated by NCLB. Stuyvesant succeeds because it's extremely selective and has a highly motivated student body.

Using it as an example for any "regular" high school is apples vs. oranges.

[Dark of the Moon]

Originally Posted by Vicman

I was referring to the physical facility, not the organization of the educational structure. What I meant by 10 stories is that by building upwards LAUSD would buy less property and therefore displace fewer apartment dwellers.

I know what you're referring to. What I'm saying is that large schools, especially those in lower-income areas, often have more problems than smaller ones.

Originally Posted by Vicman

In NYC many of the "small schools" are grouped together in large buildings; i.e. one campus houses maybe four small schools.

I know, I taught in one. But that's not the case with Stuyvesant and, therefore, not what you're proposing. Do you honestly believe a 10-story *neighborhood school* is a good thing? I don't.

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by Vicman

1. The points about the LA housing market are pretty relevant - I knew housing prices were more expensive in LA, but I kind of forgot the degree so. This leads to 2.

2. Do these complexes specifically advertise their zoned schools? If so that is an indication that a significant number of people are using the apartments to get good schools. If so, then that makes the location not as good of a choice. In Houston there are some complexes which advertise "Zoned to Bellaire Schools" to make it clear they are zoned to the well-renowned high school.

3. If LAUSD could build upward, how much space would it need? I would like to see the square footage of Stuyvesant High School in New York, which has a 10-story building for a 3,000-student campus. If LAUSD could get traction to build a 10-story building, it would have to clear a lot less land. Since New York is different from LA, I wonder how a 10-story school building would be designed to meet LA-style standards.

2) Some do, yes, but others you just have to know. I live in Los Alamitos. There are no major complexes here. Apartment Row(as my area is called) is tens to maybe a few hundred small apartment complexes(3-10 units) that are generally privately owned income properties. You may see it advertised in the paper with "Los Al schools" or you may not, but the people that do their research see it regardless.

3) the problem is that you'll still need plenty of room for the athletic facilities, and athletics are huge in CA at pretty much every school but the elite public academic schools(like oxford and whitney, which will still have good teams in areas like tennis and golf because of the clientele). cost is also an issue: the Roybal Learning Center (nearly 3k students) took 10 years and $400million to build(not including interest on the bonds, which would probably double that amt). it takes a very long time for a school to have an impact worth that much to taxpayers. the only reference ive seen of size states the school is 35 acres.

[Vicman]

I did some searching and I found 350 Grand Street in Manhattan - It is a multi-school campus and on Google Street View it appears to have six stories and a basement. It is the former Seward Park High School which had around 3,500 students in the 1980s: Insideschools.org :: School Profile - Seward Park High School

The schools today contained by 350 Grand Street are:
*Essex Street Academy (formerly High School for History and Communication) (355 students)
*Lower Manhattan Arts Academy (394 students)
*High School For Dual Language & Asian Studies (297 students)
*Urban Assembly Academy Of Government And Law (285 students)
*New Design High School (414 students)
That's about 1,745 - less than half of its 1980s enrollment rate. I'm not sure what the building utilization was like (Was 3,500 a comfortable amount, or was it overcrowded?)

Is this more representative of a typical Manhattan high school? Could this design be used in Socal to build a school upwards?

Originally Posted by squeezeboxgal

I know what you're referring to. What I'm saying is that large schools, especially those in lower-income areas, often have more problems than smaller ones.

I know, I taught in one. But that's not the case with Stuyvesant and, therefore, not what you're proposing. Do you honestly believe a 10-story *neighborhood school* is a good thing? I don't.

1. Hmm - I wonder how many are advertised with "Sherman Oaks schools" or something like that. It would be very telling if they did.
2. With a taller building one could put the tennis courts or some (not all) other outdoor athletic facilities on the roof.
3. Yes, Roybal did have an unusual history, but it's still a good point to show what can happen if it goes wrong

Originally Posted by bhcompy

2) Some do, yes, but others you just have to know. I live in Los Alamitos. There are no major complexes here. Apartment Row(as my area is called) is tens to maybe a few hundred small apartment complexes(3-10 units) that are generally privately owned income properties. You may see it advertised in the paper with "Los Al schools" or you may not, but the people that do their research see it regardless.

3) the problem is that you'll still need plenty of room for the athletic facilities, and athletics are huge in CA at pretty much every school but the elite public academic schools(like oxford and whitney, which will still have good teams in areas like tennis and golf because of the clientele). cost is also an issue: the Roybal Learning Center (nearly 3k students) took 10 years and $400million to build(not including interest on the bonds, which would probably double that amt). it takes a very long time for a school to have an impact worth that much to taxpayers. the only reference ive seen of size states the school is 35 acres.

[UB50]

You know, there is an old bank building that is just north of Vanowen on Van Nuys Blvd. that is available. It's still red tagged from the Northridge earthquake back in 1994. Why don't you try to figure out what is going on with that particular piece of property before you decide it's appropriate to raise properties that people are living in? It's a big huge office tower that no one has ever taken care of. Perhaps you could turn it into a school? It has(had) a big huge multilevel parking garage behind it too.

If you live in Texas, why does LA matter to you so much? What are your motives?

I've never seen anything that made me feel that Sherman Oaks was underserved in the education department. Most people there sent their kids to private school.

[Dark of the Moon]

Originally Posted by Vicman

I did some searching and I found 350 Grand Street in Manhattan - It is a multi-school campus and on Google Street View it appears to have six stories and a basement. It is the former Seward Park High School which had around 3,500 students in the 1980s: Insideschools.org :: School Profile - Seward Park High School

I spent a year teaching in one of the small schools in that complex. It's much more representative of NYC's current "small schools" philosophy. It has no outdoor athletic facilities, just two small gyms inside, a weight room on an upper floor, and a "playground" (so to speak) on the roof.

One more comment on 10-story schools: unless you expect the kids to sprint up and down numerous flights of stairs between classes, you're going to need elevators. It's difficult to get kids to class on time as it is -- add in delays due to not being able to board an elevator, or being crowded out on the stairs, and just imagine what will happen to the "tardy" statistics.