If you haven’t seen it or you did see it but did not know what it was, check the photos and drawings referenced and linked all through the rest of this posting. And when you see those images, think of these things: “Nothing is free,” “Would a simpler project have educated our students as well and been ready significantly faster?” and “Who is in charge of making spending decisions of taxpayer dollars, and what happened here?”
HERE NOW ARE SOME MORE VIEWS OF THE PROJECT- and commentary, of course:
(A lot of photos of this project on a downtown blog: "Angelic Downtown Los Angeles," http://www.angelenic.com/79/central-la-high-school-9-shows-some-skin/ -they must have worked or lived nearby for all the views and time intervals)
-----------------------------------------------------
A FURTHER CRITIQUE of this project was in the L.A. TIMES, nearly a year old now, and it is an outstanding one in my view- This was another of those Steve Lopez' topics, this on covering the second most expensive school (behind only the Beaudry High School project) in the U.S., all projects from LAUSD. If you missed it or want to see the mild way he gives some harsh criticism, see:
”The design of L.A. Unified's new arts high school is convoluted and costly,” Steve Lopez, May 4, 2008 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez4-2008may04,0,4743795.column This story led to an L.A. TIMES blog with some wacky comments by readers as justification for the expense. The billionaire, Eli Broad, happens to be the moving force for the design choice. He wanted it to fit in with the other downtown project, "The Grand Avenue Project," that also is currently sucking tax dollars and is way behind schedule construction.
It was the yielding to the political influence that put this school on the road to extravagance in construction costs and more delay- 2 more years- before any students could benefit from the new school. That is another cost that doesn’t get to be figured into projects, the cost of students who move on through high school while the project is plodding along in various stages of completion. Hope as they might, being able to spend a part of their high school years in a new facility is not in the cards for these students.
--------------------------------------------------
If you want photos- there are lots of very good ones at various stages of construction:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=529012
“Skyscraper City” blog thread on the LAUSD High School for the Visual & Performing Arts #9 U/C,
This site has some very good architect’s images of a completed project and the layout is diagrammed very well, maybe too well in this post-9-11 security age, but very impressive on a visual basis.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=30043180
Another thread of the same blog, with some beautiful interior photos from DEC. 2008.
The entry on that blog (#62), “L.A.'s new arts school an expensive social experiment,” repeats the text of the L.A. Times story of December 22, 2008.
Original story at;
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/22/local/me-arts22?s=o&n=o&rd=www.google.com&sessid=7c247f2068c353b12d60caaf8b218b5463185fbc&pg=2&pgtp=article&eagi=&page_type=article&exci=2008_12_22_local_me-arts22
Lots of criticism here on several levels, costs being the big one, but LAUSD’s operational style is again responsible for bringing us projects of astronomical expense of taxpayer dollars, and 2 years here of time that students were shortchanged for the sake of architecture and image priorities that themselves are of very questionable value and come from POLITICAL influence to serve other agendas.
Things for the district have changed and while more schools are built, student enrollment is dropping. The District is constantly lagging behind in addressing and responding to what the needs are simply because the District is so huge and has an overload of bureaucracy to wade through before anything actually happens. I don’t believe that smaller school districts have this situation and can therefore make more timely response, keeping their districts within some order that avoids a lot of collateral problems found in LAUSD, like waste, unaccountability, structure maintenance and overall periodic reviews of status for proper controls.
As for who will be attending this “High School #9,” It does look like the students will still be geographically selected for the majority of spaces in this school according to the story.
Former school board member David Tokofsky said he believed the overcrowdingIn contrast to this enlightened view to use of a specialized resource, Supt. Alonzo sounds as if local students should have preference as some form of alms for the District's misdeeds of the past, which I think is a typical style of decision-making that you see happen with the LAUSD.
problem had been solved, leaving no need for the school to focus on the
neighborhood. He said the school should reach out for "talent from Banning
[High], from Pacoima, from Huntington Park."
But Alonzo and others insist that the district has, in effect, a social====================
obligation to make up for decades of neglect in the areas just west of
downtown.
HERE IS A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THE SCHOOL, coming from an achitectural view.
If it’s a pro-design commentary, and one that grossly UNDERestimates the construction time (“The much anticipated October opening …has been delayed a year.” From the Nov. 2007 statement) AND COSTS (“The $171 Million project is expected to open in late 2008.”), both wrong, at least 1/3 more was added to costs, and an another full year delay beyond that until the first students can enter in September 2009.
“Coop Himmelb(l)au’s Los Angeles Flagship High School delayed one year,” http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=1607 Monday 19 Nov 2007.
Posts
