I'm sorry to hear that. I hope that they don't get caught up in a possible decant as well.Sad thing is that as my son and many others left Towerbank this year and will not benefit from the new developments there they will not now benefit from a new high schoolas they will be leaving by time the council predict it will be ready!!
Wouldn't know about any of the situations at the Public schools Dadaist, but I work at a school that has off site playing fields and it's a case of just making the best of it. Pupils arrive late for classes ( sometimes deliberately using the travel from their PE class as an excuse) and have to cut short their PE time to allow for walking between sites. There is a thriving range of after school clubs so they get more than their fair share of exercise if they want it but this is in addition to class time. I'm also sure that many of the householders on the route to the playing fields would tell you that they'd prefer that the pupils didn't have to travel to and from playing fields !Dadaist wrote:. bbrown made the point that posh schools like Heriots have no gripes about Goldenacre and I've not seen a response
Did you also read the bits where Dave told us that exam results dipped and that was during a partial decant of only 9 months due to a programme of refurbishment/rebuild? Now try to imagine what a 2/3 year decant of an entire school would do to PHS staff and pupils! Would you have children involved in a decant bb?bbbrown wrote:David Simpson, Depute Head at Firrhill High School
Its in that link in your post....
All I'm trying to say is that a decant need not be the nightmare some are trying to paint it as. A challenge certainly, but as David Simpson himself admits, and as is the case with most challenging situations, life goes on... Interesting as well that in the case of Firrhill, the work was completed ahead of schedule, so maybe the doom and gloom merchants are being overly pessimistic in saying it could be as much as 2 - 3 years.....
Also, I used to go to a school with off site playing fields....it was fine.....
bbbrown wrote:David Simpson, Depute Head at Firrhill High School
Its in that link in your post....
All I'm trying to say is that a decant need not be the nightmare some are trying to paint it as. A challenge certainly, but as David Simpson himself admits, and as is the case with most challenging situations, life goes on... Interesting as well that in the case of Firrhill, the work was completed ahead of schedule, so maybe the doom and gloom merchants are being overly pessimistic in saying it could be as much as 2 - 3 years.....
Also, I used to go to a school with off site playing fields....it was fine.....
I can't speak for anyone else but in my opinion in the absence of a suitable brownfield site, it would. We should be considering how we can ensure that only one school is built on the park with no additional development.Dadaist wrote:Would avoiding a decant alone justify building a new school on the park?
I was just being facetious at the ridiculousness of this suggestion. In reality there are two things I consider with regard to PHS: One is with regard to any possible impact on my own children and the second is what is the best solution for all children in our community now and in the future.Dadaist wrote:I didn't know that people who want to save the park were up against this mindset. I didn't know that there were people who would make it policy to just find a park and build on it simply to avoid a decant.
The worse thing I have ever wanted for the golf course is for it to be relocated up the road to a new course. I can say however that I viewed it very cynically when all of a sudden they were going to start a Junior Section after being in existence for over 100 years. Anyway, if they built the school on the Park, which is my preferred option, the golfie would remain where it is and it could be brilliant for the golf club Junior Section section as there would be 1,400 youngsters looking out their windows at it everyday wondering what it would be like to play.Dadaist wrote:PoP - Why mention things like the Golf Club not having a junior section if you'd be willing to build on their land regardless of any other consideration than avoiding a decant?
There is going to be self interest on both sides. I think some parents are going to be concerned about the impact of decant, because of the impact on their children. I think some people will oppose buliding on the park because it is in their street rather than wider environmental issues (think of where the concentration of posters in houses are that want to stop the building in the park). I'm not saying that these are bad things or there is anything wrong with it.Dadaist wrote:I didn't know that people who want to save the park were up against this mindset.
I didn't know that there were people who would make it policy to just find a park and build on it simply to avoid a decant.
There's no point arguing against that mindset - it can only be legislated against either through a planning policy which protects green space or some other law.
PoP - Why mention things like the Golf Club not having a junior section if you'd be willing to build on their land regardless of any other consideration than avoiding a decant?
...which seems fair enough.With regard to further layouts, I have raised your request within the Department but we are not requesting Smith Scott Mullen to do any further work for us at this stage. We need to ensure the information we make available is consistent and available via all sources, and not issued to only one source part way through the consultation process.
I didn't argue for a rebuild on site.Marya wrote:Arguing to rebuild on site doesn't necessarily protect the Park Dadaist as St John's would have to move.
My ideal scenario would be PHS on the Park with St John's being rebuilt on the old PHS site. That way the golf course stays put and the current playing fields are replaced with a school and playing fields. Then a few more decades down the line when the school starts to show its age you just rebuild on the playing fields and move the pitches to the site of the demolished school.
If the last thing you want is for them to be built on land in use as something else then where on earth do you envisage locating them if not on their existing sites?Dadaist wrote:My daughter, and her future sibling, will hopefully progress through both St Johns and PHS - but the last thing I want is for them to have been built on land which was meant for something else, in use as something else and whose building was bulldozed into life by the blustering banality of the boorish.
The financial cost of a decant adds another £5.8m to the project and we have been told in the consultatation document that this optionDadaist wrote:Also, although Bob has decreed that funding isn't a topic any more, I'd love to know the difference in cost between onsite and park PHS builds and if we'd be getting a more expensive school if it was on the park.
For the specific figures look at the table of Comparative Costs 6.5 in the PHS Consultation Document.is the most expensive to build, in addition to the costs of relocation of other users and decant
Architecture, art, literature, language (Latin), sanitation, aqueducts, education, irrigation, the calendar, coins, cement and bricks, public heated baths, turnips and carrots, paved streets and pavements, apples, pears and grapes, roads, wine, cats, towns, glass, street cleaners, shops, laws, tenement blocks, public order, firemen and police, parks, cabbages & peas, public libraries, public notices and advertisements.seanie wrote:And what have the Romans ever done for us?
