New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 May 2006, 14:54

Gilo wrote:Dadaist, is everything o.k.?

Hey - I never wrote that. Wish I had actually!

In answer to your question I'm fine - I just thought I would break my own rule of not posting enormous quotes, seeing as it is de rigeur.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 02 May 2006, 15:20

"Is a dream a lie that don't come true or is it something worse?"- Bruce Springstwain

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 02 May 2006, 15:22

Its obvious, you said so yourself.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 May 2006, 15:27

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Its obvious, you said so yourself.

So it's not the split site that's the difference - it's the funding?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 02 May 2006, 15:47

Dadaist wrote:So it's not the split site that's the difference - it's the funding?

May be a good way of thinking about it is to ask "What are the advantages to pupils of having split sight facilties?".

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 02 May 2006, 15:50

I don't really know much about private schools or at least not when it comes to PE. However the impression I get is that sport is compulsory and PE teachers (and possibly others) are contractually obligated to provide after school hours across multiple sports. Is that correct?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 May 2006, 15:51

That still doesn't answer my question though, which concerns playing fields only, not multi-campus schools like the one in your article.

Stephen - so it's not the split site that's the difference - it's the funding?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 02 May 2006, 15:54

Stephen McIntyre wrote:I don't really know much

come come, don't hide your light...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 May 2006, 16:00

Stephen McIntyre wrote:I don't really know much about private schools or at least not when it comes to PE. However the impression I get is that sport is compulsory and PE teachers (and possibly others) are contractually obligated to provide after school hours across multiple sports. Is that correct?

That's it on the nail. Or, if you will excuse the pun, on the money.

I was wondering how on earth we managed to get all that time spent doing PE when PHS kids only get 20 minutes after the bus rides.

Yes - on "games" day your lessons would finish at 2.35 but you would be away until 5 or something (maybe 4.30) but plenty long enough for the rugby torturers to get to work on you.

Yes also on the compulsory bit - up until 5th year we had no choice but to get freezing and knackered - with the torture changing depending on the season.

So time equals money - thanks for answering my question.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 02 May 2006, 16:02

Dadaist wrote:That still doesn't answer my question though, which concerns playing fields only,

To try to compare Heriots and PHS and then draw conclusions would be bad science.

What I can say is that I was lucky enough to go to a Primary and Secondary School with on site playing fields. Looking back there seemed to be a number of advantages. The obvious being more time playing and less busing. Also I used to turn up early for school where the kind p.e. teacher would let us play before school started. I played football in the lunch hour. I had space to run around in breaks, as I got older this turned into space to smoke cigarettes (but the point remains the same). It was also a beautiful and inspiring setting which appeared to promote sports and activity.

I can't think of many advantages to pupils of having these facilties some distance away.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 02 May 2006, 16:04

So you finished PE after school hours? Did you get bussed back to school or left to your own getting home devices?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 02 May 2006, 16:27

Gilo wrote: I can't think of many advantages to pupils of having these facilties some distance away.

I can't think of any.

Similarly, I can't think of any advantages for golfers having to walk another 23 minutes or drive or be driven another 2 minutes to play golf. However I suppose there are advantages for those that live nearer the new course.

Getting back to the split sites; when we used to have to go from the pHS building to the main school we def lost education time. Why should we entertain that option when we don't have to?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 02 May 2006, 16:32

[quote="Dave Connelly"]
You can in fact say or do whatever you like, but the reality is this, (and I echo the quoted chain store, who know about building on green space)
<p>
â€œWhen itâ€™s gone itâ€™s goneâ€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 May 2006, 16:51

From the EN Letters Page, 2 May 2006:

No green space will be left for future schools

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 May 2006, 17:05

Stephen McIntyre wrote:So you finished PE after school hours? Did you get bussed back to school or left to your own getting home devices?

Dumped at Goldenacre. OK if you lived in Trinity I guess but I hated that too - it was cold, dark in winter, I was hungry and knackered and I had to get 2 buses home.

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 02 May 2006, 21:34

Hi I am new here,but just had to say that when PHS first opened its doors it was not a split side that came later.
The playing fields were at Hunters Hall that was,now the Jack Kane and we only went there once a week if it was a nice day

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 02 May 2006, 21:45

Welcome Izzie and thanks for that input. I thought the "annexe" had been used from the word go, one learns something every day.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 02 May 2006, 21:51

Stephen McIntyre wrote:"If we had on-site playing fields I would have more training for the football team. I'm sure many more kids would play and more teachers would help out"- Kenny Walker, Physics Teacher and Coach of the senior football team at Portobello High School.

And your point is?

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 02 May 2006, 21:52

Nope I was one off the first year that went into a brand new school.

The annexe was not used until years later,giving my age away now.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 02 May 2006, 21:57

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Getting back to the split sites; when we used to have to go from the pHS building to the main school we def lost education time. Why should we entertain that option when we don't have to?

Coz it was great fun! The teachers at the annexe got an extra 10 minutes between classes to get organised, have a cuppa, put their feet up. The pupils got a wee natter as they doddled down the road and missed 10 minutes of what was probably a really boring Modern Studies lesson. It taught us all about time keeping and road safety.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 02 May 2006, 22:17

Dadaist wrote:Dumped at Goldenacre. OK if you lived in Trinity I guess but I hated that too - it was cold, dark in winter, I was hungry and knackered and I had to get 2 buses home.

Sounds like a brilliant reason to have integrated, on-site sports and exercise facilities in a local school that serves its community.

PS It wasn't even much fun getting the 6.00pm 42 bus from Calvary Park to Portobello, then walking home either.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 May 2006, 22:58

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Dumped at Goldenacre. OK if you lived in Trinity I guess but I hated that too - it was cold, dark in winter, I was hungry and knackered and I had to get 2 buses home.
Sounds like a brilliant reason to have integrated, on-site sports and exercise facilities in a local school that serves its community.

PS It wasn't even much fun getting the 6.00pm 42 bus from Calvary Park to Portobello, then walking home either.

To me, it was reason enough to drop games like a bad smell - but I think that even if the playing fields had been on-site I would never have played rugby if I had been given a choice. It was an evil sport inflicted on unwilling participants in adverse conditions. I didn't like it.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 02 May 2006, 23:09

[quote="Stephen McIntyre"][quote="Dave Connelly"]
You can in fact say or do whatever you like, but the reality is this, (and I echo the quoted chain store, who know about building on green space)
<p>
â€œWhen itâ€™s gone itâ€™s goneâ€

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 02 May 2006, 23:12

Just been looking at an aerial photo of Edinburgh.

Gracemount High School, (The new one) appears to have been built on a park.

The new Primary School at Moredun, Built on a park, with lots of housing on the parks around it.

Comments on a post card please

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 May 2006, 09:16

The new school at Gracemount was built on the existing school playing fields, then the existing school was demolished and turned into new playing fields. All the development took place within the confines of the existing school site.

Not on a park.

However I think part of the site was sold off for housing. Additional development is common, even under PPP, to sweeten the sums.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 09:54

seanie wrote:The new school at Gracemount was built on the existing school playing fields, then the existing school was demolished and turned into new playing fields. All the development took place within the confines of the existing school site.

Not on a park.

However I think part of the site was sold off for housing. Additional development is common, even under PPP, to sweeten the sums.

I wonder if that's the fate of this project - when the new school needs to be replaced (which it will) the future council may have no money and no space to site a new new school, so will re-build on the existing site and maybe put houses or a supermarket on the playing fields.

At least we'll get a couple of generations use out of it!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 May 2006, 11:21

I have to take issue with Stephen Hawkins' recent letter to the EN. His interpretation of the Councilâ€™s report leads me to wonder whether he has in fact read the document in question. His suggestion that the Council is considering a plan to re-build Portobello High School on site cannot possibly be based on anything contained therein.

To recap, the 8 storey tower block school is the largest in Edinburgh. The school currently sits on a site (5.9 acres) which is a third of the recommended minimum size for a school of 1400 pupils (17 acres). Source - School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967.

Regarding re-build on site, the Councilâ€™s report concludes:

given the site constraints that would force compromises to the design, and the high cost of providing temporary decant accommodation, this option represents worse value for money than building a new school elsewhere.

Those 1400 kids are a big part of our community and itâ€™s time we stopped treating them as second-class citizens who can be cooped up like battery hens. Sadly, parents can anticipate more red herrings and delaying tactics as the consultation process runs its course towards the now seemingly inevitable Public Inquiry, with children as the only losers.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 11:23

Dadaist wrote: so will re-build on the existing site and maybe put houses or a supermarket on the playing fields. !

Maybe a correctional facility or a halfway house for reforming prisoners like the one that they didn't want in John Street as it was to be full of undesirables. Do you think that's the way some people view the possibility of having the community's children as neighbours? Pestered by undesirables.

What about the positive side to all of this? Maybe a school in the park with playing fields will become a centre of excellence for one or more sports?

Similarly, there is a lot of talk about potential drop in value of houses that surround Portobello Park as they will no longer have a completley open view. (very difficult to prove and personally i doubt it). What about the people who buy the new houses at Brunstane who will benefit from an open view across a golf course and if we accept the above argument, their properties will fetch premium prices. Isn' that what being part of a community is all about? Share and share alike.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 May 2006, 12:14

A building to sustainable standards should have a design life of 60 years at a minimum. A design with inherent flexibility and adaptability has greater chance of use beyond that because, if the underlying design and organisation of spaces is still fit for purpose, then refurbishment may well be worthwhile to prolong the life of the building. There are limitations. Itâ€™s impossible to second-guess what will be required in 60 years time. But thereâ€™s an increasing emphasis on â€œfuture-proofingâ€

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 12:58

seanie wrote:A building to sustainable standards should have a design life of 60 years at a minimum. A design with inherent flexibility and adaptability has greater chance of use beyond that because, if the underlying design and organisation of spaces is still fit for purpose, then refurbishment may well be worthwhile to prolong the life of the building.

That sounds like yet another reason to avoid rebuilding in situe. There is not enough space to provide the "inherent flexibility and adaptability" you speak of. So the lifespan of any building there would likely be shorter and need replacing earlier.

seanie wrote:In any event if you have a building today that needs replacing, because itâ€™s reached itâ€™s natural lifespan, isnâ€™t fit for purpose or canâ€™t be brought up to a sufficient standard cost-effectively, then youâ€™d better replace it.

This is the first time I've read an acceptance that the PHS building has reached its natural lifespan, well done. Up until now all we get is "the building was only built in 1964 and it is not fit for purpose". Na, na, na, na na.

Depending on what figures one believes? The PHS building was built to last 40 or maximum 50 years without taking into account the type of buildings and facilities that are required to meet modern standards. Well its been there already for 42 years, it will be there for another 3 at least so there's 45. During that time it has been overcapacity for many years. I would say its done the job it was supposed to do, it is now at the end of its natural life. Whoever designed and built it got their timings right.

seanie wrote:To not replace buildings that need replacing now, because the buildings theyâ€™re replaced with will need replacing in the future, would be daft. .

Daft is currency in some parts of Portobello.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 13:57

To not replace buildings that need replacing now, because the buildings theyâ€™re replaced with will need replacing in the future, would be daft.

Never said that nor suggested it, nor am I suggesting you are suggesting I suggested it - just making sure you're sure I didn't suggest it.

Cos I'm pro-plan.

I'm just pointing out that if school rebuilds are to be funded by building houses on golf/footie/park/whatever grassy bits then it's reasonable to expect the greedy eyes of the council to look enviously on the new playing fields next to the new school when the new building starts to get raggedy round the edges.

It still beats PPP though.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 14:03

Dadaist wrote:
I'm just pointing out that if school rebuilds are to be funded by building houses on golf/footie/park/whatever grassy bits then it's reasonable to expect the greedy eyes of the council to look enviously on the new playing fields next to the new school when the new building starts to get raggedy round the edges.

On what are you basing your reasonable expectation? Have the council been replacing schools that did have playing fields with schools that don't?

This seems to go against all current thinking and against SE guidelines, I was not aware.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 03 May 2006, 14:03

All buildings have natural life-spans. Itâ€™s frequently explicitly designed in. For commercial developments those lifespans might be quite short (20 years or less depending on the circumstances) but 30-60 years hasnâ€™t been an unusual range in the post-war era. 60 years used to be seen more as a maximum but with greater emphasis on sustainability it will more likely become the minimum. That will have knock on effects in terms construction methods, materials, specification etc.

However the impact on design is also hugely significant. The biggest limitation on the continued use of buildings isnâ€™t usually their material condition. Itâ€™s their fitness for purpose.

There is inevitable obsolescence in many elements of a building but most of them can be replaced. It may be disruptive and costly but if your building is fundamentally sound in design terms it may well be worthwhile. And as an aside â€œstructural soundnessâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 03 May 2006, 14:21

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
I'm just pointing out that if school rebuilds are to be funded by building houses on golf/footie/park/whatever grassy bits then it's reasonable to expect the greedy eyes of the council to look enviously on the new playing fields next to the new school when the new building starts to get raggedy round the edges.
On what are you basing your reasonable expectation? Have the council been replacing schools that did have playing fields with schools that don't?

This seems to go against all current thinking and against SE guidelines, I was not aware.

Extrapolation!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 03 May 2006, 14:36

I understand the mechanism but on what basis? Have the council been replacing schools that did have playing fields with schools that don't?