Last week, CUSD began installation of portable classrooms on its brand-new $150 million high school. With all of the brilliant capacity planning that went into this site, it is now evident that almost half the classrooms on campus were planned to be in so-called "relocatable" buildings.
Whether these buildings are able to provide any margin of safety for the occupants is a question worth asking. Between the fuel pipeline, the storm drains (connected to the drains under these classrooms), the EMF from adjacent 230 KV transmission lines, and god knows what else, there is cause for concern.
Studies conducted for the California Department of Education have shown that portable classrooms are less expensive to install, but cost more to maintain over the long term than permanent structures. Given this fact, can there be any logic in using portable buildings as a permanent fixture of a school?
Pictures
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
You might want to check the EdCode that is about 5 feet high stacked and then you'll find out that relocatables are easier and cheaper to put in then fixed buildings with all the earthquake and other rules/stipulations/building codes, etc.
I think the two story portables are nice looking at several CUSD campuses and wish they'd tear down more of the ugly fixed buildings and put them in. Why we have these open college like campuses in the first place is beyond me. From a security standpoint and reality standpoint--duh it does rain in California and kids walking to/from class get poured on. Just imagine if they were in an enclosed building with hallways and indoor lockers and several easy to monitor entrances and exits how much safer and nicer our schools would be not to mention how much less valuable real estate they'd use up.
Thanks for the comment.
I agree that it is easier and cheaper to install portables compared to permanent buildings. However, when you are building a new school consisting of permanent buildings, why plan to use portables? Why not plan for what you need in the permanent facility?
The trap here is that portables cost more to maintain and more to operate. They are less energy efficient compared to modern permanent buildings. Thus, they impose a long term burden on scarce general fund resources that could otherwise be used to educate kids.
SJHHS is not even a year old and it has only 9th and 10th grade enrollment, yet CUSD is installing portables. The permanent facilities are not yet finished!
It's interesting that there was money to build a permanent structure for the toilets and concession stand to serve the non-existent stadium. Over the hill at Ambuehl Elementary, CUSD has been operating a "permanent" toilet in a portable structure for years -- necessary to serve the regular capacity of that school.
Post a Comment