HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2017, 9:34 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
So I think the devil is in the details here. What's the "related" in that line? Cause it sure ain't the athletic department itself (which is listed as less than $5M of that $12M).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2017, 9:36 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimo33 View Post
Novavek, I misquoted the page number, the page should be 413 not 407. Student Group 91 - Athletics and Related Activity, at the bottom of the page shows what I am referring to. Once again apologies about the page numbers.
That page shows mostly equivalent figures with Austin in the cluster at the middle of the pack. Only Corpus is an outlier in the "too much" category and only Aldine and Houston are outliers in the "too little" category. The rest are all substantially similar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 10:39 PM
Texas Jeff Texas Jeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
Not a budget, but this is the breakdown of the proposed AISD bond. .57% for Athletics.

That pie chart is a little misleading. It makes it look like only a tiny part is for athletics, but it does not include any money spent on schools for athletic renovations.

The "athletics" part is the House Park renovations, which for me would be welcome, but the chart under-represents the total dollars being spent on athletics in the bond.

I am really undecided on this election. Some good stuff and some pet projects. AISD needs to gradually renovate all of their campuses, but does not need all of the "urgent" projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 10:58 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Jeff View Post
That pie chart is a little misleading. It makes it look like only a tiny part is for athletics, but it does not include any money spent on schools for athletic renovations.

The "athletics" part is the House Park renovations, which for me would be welcome, but the chart under-represents the total dollars being spent on athletics in the bond.

I am really undecided on this election. Some good stuff and some pet projects. AISD needs to gradually renovate all of their campuses, but does not need all of the "urgent" projects.
You're right about how they group expenses. Expanding the athletics wing at Bowie, for example, is not considered "athletics" spending. It's called an expansion of the common areas. This phase includes fine arts and athletics. The next phase would include the cafeteria. They consider it expanding the campus as a whole in order to meet standards for a 2,900 capacity.

A third party looked at all the facilities and said they need just over $4 billion to address each problem area. They pared that down to a quarter of what's needed. These are what their metrics show to be the most urgent projects. I wouldn't say they are doing all of the urgent projects.

Athletics expenditures requested, but not happening in this bond:
- AISD wants to put 1 turf practice field on every HS campus, as well as lights.
- House Park press box and other various renovations not included in proposition
- Burger Stadium renovations and press box
- Nelson Field renovations
- Anderson HS gym expansion

That's just off the top of my head.

I agree with you that AISD needs to renovate all of their campuses. I believe that's their goal over time. The main expenditure in this bond is actually money going to repairing problems at every campus (leaking roof, HVAC, etc.). They want to renovate all schools that need it, but as you said, have to do it gradually. They decided to address the campuses that are either in very bad shape, or are dealing with major overcrowding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2017, 11:47 PM
Texas Jeff Texas Jeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
Thanks for the response. What I meant was that there are projects in this bond that are not needed.

Some examples:

LASA and LBJ are being split into two campuses, so that LASA can expand to somewhere around 2,000 students. So they took Eastside's campus for that purpose. Eastside gets a new building as compensation. This means we will spend $80 million so that we can have one tiny high school (Eastside, at 800 kids), another tiny high school (what is left of LBJ, maybe 800 kids) and a new expanded LASA.

That means that you have one more set of coaches, band directors, admins, support staff to support a new high school so that LASA can grow. Ten years from now, AISD is projected to have fewer kids in high school than they do now, but may have two more campuses than they do now (proposed new Eastside plus the new Southwest HS).

As an example, today you are paying 11 high school football coaches and tomorrow you may be paying 13 coaches to coach a smaller population. To me, that does not make sense. They should be thinking about consolidating or adjusting population to a smaller number of campuses, and putting money into each campus to bring them all up to modern standards.

LASA, by expanding, may be a lower rated school than it is today. If you assume that the top 5% of kids are at LASA today, and LASA expands while AISD shrinks, then you may have the top 11% of kids attending LASA in ten years. LASA's ratings will drop compared to other magnets across Texas, and all of the other high schools ratings may drop because they contributed more kids to LASA. I am assuming that those extra 6% of kids were helping the ratings of their "home" schools" but might lower the ratings of the "top" kids currently at LASA.

They could have moved LASA to Eastside, combined the current Eastside and LBJ and put all of the new Eastside money into the LBJ and current eastside campuses. But ... politically it would have been tough to academically segregate those schools.

The Mueller folks want a school, so there is a "Northeast MS" in the bond for Mueller. There is plenty of middle school capacity in East Austin, but it's not in Mueller. But, Mueller has voters and so a middle school in Mueller helps pass the bond. Will we close other middle schools around Mueller and move those kids to the new school? I predict all will remain open.

Bowie is overcrowded but it is going to peak and drop down. Crockett is not crowded. Bowie has a lot of transfer students from Crockett. If overcrowding at Bowie is a problem, why not just move some transfer students back to Crockett? I know Bowie is considered to be a "better" school than Crockett, but why not spend the money to repair or replace Crockett and make it a better school, taking some pressure off of Bowie?

I'm sure Bowie needs some repairs but how many high schools in Texas have a parking garage? I looked and could find only one example.

I'm picking on those projects as examples and there are others I could have named, and also some good projects in the bond.

There is no guarantee that the people who get a benefit this time will turn around and vote for others to get a benefit in the next election. I wish they would have mapped out the entire thing with specific times to call for replacement of all of the schools, with approximate tax rates along the way to ensure that long term this was all sustainable and that the entire district would eventually get an uplift.

I feel they partially did that and they did set up a rough map to follow, but some "special" projects did get in the bond with no guarantee that those that were not included would see their school upgraded in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2017, 1:44 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Jeff View Post
Thanks for the response. What I meant was that there are projects in this bond that are not needed.

Some examples:
Awesome. I was hoping you'd provide examples. I wanted to know how you viewed the bond.

Quote:
LASA and LBJ are being split into two campuses, so that LASA can expand to somewhere around 2,000 students. So they took Eastside's campus for that purpose. Eastside gets a new building as compensation. This means we will spend $80 million so that we can have one tiny high school (Eastside, at 800 kids), another tiny high school (what is left of LBJ, maybe 800 kids) and a new expanded LASA.

That means that you have one more set of coaches, band directors, admins, support staff to support a new high school so that LASA can grow. Ten years from now, AISD is projected to have fewer kids in high school than they do now, but may have two more campuses than they do now (proposed new Eastside plus the new Southwest HS).

As an example, today you are paying 11 high school football coaches and tomorrow you may be paying 13 coaches to coach a smaller population. To me, that does not make sense. They should be thinking about consolidating or adjusting population to a smaller number of campuses, and putting money into each campus to bring them all up to modern standards.

LASA, by expanding, may be a lower rated school than it is today. If you assume that the top 5% of kids are at LASA today, and LASA expands while AISD shrinks, then you may have the top 11% of kids attending LASA in ten years. LASA's ratings will drop compared to other magnets across Texas, and all of the other high schools ratings may drop because they contributed more kids to LASA. I am assuming that those extra 6% of kids were helping the ratings of their "home" schools" but might lower the ratings of the "top" kids currently at LASA.

They could have moved LASA to Eastside, combined the current Eastside and LBJ and put all of the new Eastside money into the LBJ and current eastside campuses. But ... politically it would have been tough to academically segregate those schools.
A couple of things in response...

I'm not certain LASA will have athletics. They very well could, but I just haven't seen it mentioned. If you have, can you please provide a link? I'm not saying you're wrong.

I agree that the high schools in East Austin are shrinking fast. It doesn't make sense to have 3 of them open (now 4 with LASA). But I don't think Eastside can be combined with LBJ. They serve two different parts of the city, and aren't all that close. I'd be ok with combining Reagan and LBJ since they are right next to each other. But the problem is always political. People will howl over the "injustice" of their school being closed.

It's a tough problem with lots of landmines.

Also, the Eastside new campus deal is combined with the East Austin neighborhood wanting the old LC Anderson campus renovated and used. Eastside is moving into that campus after it's renovated. Your point still stands, though.


Quote:
The Mueller folks want a school, so there is a "Northeast MS" in the bond for Mueller. There is plenty of middle school capacity in East Austin, but it's not in Mueller. But, Mueller has voters and so a middle school in Mueller helps pass the bond. Will we close other middle schools around Mueller and move those kids to the new school? I predict all will remain open.
I agree with you on this one. This is an example of a project in this bond that is an attempt to curry favor in order to get the votes needed. It's Politics 101.

Quote:
Bowie is overcrowded but it is going to peak and drop down. Crockett is not crowded. Bowie has a lot of transfer students from Crockett. If overcrowding at Bowie is a problem, why not just move some transfer students back to Crockett? I know Bowie is considered to be a "better" school than Crockett, but why not spend the money to repair or replace Crockett and make it a better school, taking some pressure off of Bowie?

I'm sure Bowie needs some repairs but how many high schools in Texas have a parking garage? I looked and could find only one example.
Actually, the Bowie campus is closed to those transfers now. I believe they initiated it last school year. There are no more majority-to-minority transfers allowed into Bowie. And Crockett sent few transfers to Bowie compared to Akins. If you take away Akins and Crockett transfers, Bowie is a lot closer to the 2,400 physical capacity of the campus. Even with the transfers frozen, they still see Bowie peaking around 3,100 in a few years, then shrinking back to a steady 3,000. That's still more than they have now. They're holding steady currently between 2,800-2,900 with transfers.

They also think having LASA closer to South Austin, and able to accept more students, will take pressure off Bowie. A majority of LASA students are from south of the river. Many Bowie students attend LASA instead. They are expecting even more to transfer to LASA.

Bowie does need repairs and expansions, but I'm with you on the parking garage. I'm not sure where that one came from. It just popped up on their vision, and I'm not sure who came up with the idea. I know they are more than bursting at the seams with regard to parking. They don't just fill their spots. They have people parking on grass, on the concrete around the school that was not made for parking, along Wolf Trap, and they fill the church parking lot next door. I know someone here said just make them take the bus, but let's be realistic. Kids will drive. And this neighborhood seems to be able to afford having a car for their kid. And they see Bowie getting more crowded.

I will say that this expansion of Bowie is another political bone to get votes. SW and SE Austin have been in a battle for years now over the new HS. SE Austin won and will be getting a HS sometime in the future. The large, wealthy voting bloc of SW Austin had to be appeased in some way. This is what the board came up with.

Quote:
There is no guarantee that the people who get a benefit this time will turn around and vote for others to get a benefit in the next election. I wish they would have mapped out the entire thing with specific times to call for replacement of all of the schools, with approximate tax rates along the way to ensure that long term this was all sustainable and that the entire district would eventually get an uplift.

I feel they partially did that and they did set up a rough map to follow, but some "special" projects did get in the bond with no guarantee that those that were not included would see their school upgraded in the future.
I think they're being pretty calculated about this concern. They didn't give Bowie everything in this bond. They're saving some for a future bond. They are doing that for other areas of town as well. It'll help with that problem you mention, which is a legitimate one, of people getting theirs and not voting for others to benefit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2017, 5:04 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
I just realized something re: parking garage. It probably stems from the SOS impervious cover regulations.

I think I read that Bowie was allowed at ~40%, but now that they are going to change things up, they have to adhere to the new regulations, which is something like 25% cover. That's why they purchased the two neighboring lots. The expansions planned so far are over existing parking lots, so it doesn't add or take away. But I remember speaking with a man that works for AISD with their construction projects at a community meeting this summer. He mentioned something about the existing drainage areas near the existing parking lot are going to have to be redone. Perhaps they will be losing spaces due to these new regulations, and that's what spurred the parking garage idea.

I'm going to ask the trustee of the zone Bowie is in and try to get some answers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2017, 10:17 PM
Texas Jeff Texas Jeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
I'm not certain LASA will have athletics. They very well could, but I just haven't seen it mentioned. If you have, can you please provide a link? I'm not saying you're wrong.
My information that they will have athletics comes from some information from the LASA principal that LASA was seeking a "comprehensive" high school:

http://www.lasahighschool.com/?PageN...CornerID=16838

You have to read way down the page to get to this statement from the principal, here is an excerpt:

--

What does it mean to be a comprehensive high school?

It means that a school has the full complement of UIL fine arts, athletic and academic offerings. In other words we would still have a band, orchestra, theater and choir for fine arts as well as sports, journalism, robotics, etc

Wait. If we become our own campus, what happens to UIL?

In Texas, magnet schools that wish to compete in UIL must do so at the highest possible level. In this case that would be 6A. However, like any other school that wants to move up or down in their assigned UIL area we can petition the schools in our assigned district as well as the district we would like to be in. If all of the schools vote for the move, then we can play in the district we petitioned to enter. This vote is good for two years and the school must repetition every time for the district it wants to be in.

Seriously, do you think LASA could field a football team?

Absolutely, unequivocally, yes! If we were sitting at between 1400 and 1600 we would have the numbers to field a team. I’m not saying that would be nearly as good as our current teams that allow for the most athletic from both schools to come together. I’m just saying we could field a team.

--

That reads like LASA is fully intending to support a football team, other athletic teams, a band, an orchestra, a full compliment of UIL actitives. This is a cost adder to what AISD is paying now, since now they share these facilities with LBJ.

LBJ will now need a robotics teacher, since now LBJ and LASA share a robotics program. Or LBJ students will no longer have access to a robotics program.

Is there any information showing that LASA, as a result of getting their own campus, would opt out of any UIL activities so that they do not increase the cost to the distinct? I assume they will have these activities (and the new Eastside as well) because I am not aware of any high school in Texas that does NOT have UIL activities. I assume they will have them and they will need coaches and directors for these activities.

BTW, I support these types of activities -- LBJ has a fine orchestra and band program and their athletic teams frequently win the Austin district. But I would rather give these coaches and teachers a raise and hire fewer of them in bigger schools than have more of them at tiny schools.

LASA would have to compete in class 6A, which means they would be playing football with schools like Bowie, Westlake, Lake Travis. Pure magnet schools have to compete at the highest UIL level. Schools with enrollments almost twice as large and much larger and more committed athletic programs.

Even if the school had no UIL activities, they still need another set of principals, support staff, bus routes, landscapers, physical plant support, and so on. It's just more expensive to support a set of small sites versus fewer, larger sites.

If this plan is approved by voters, I predict that the new Eastside will show up at the next bond planning committee to say that they were shocked to find out that they don't have a softball or baseball field at their new home, and LASA will show up to say that they were surprised to find out that the old Eastside campus is in need of a lot of repair. LASA parents are pretty involved, and will push for more money to improve their campus. Eastside parents will make an equity argument, and push for more money for their campus. And some projects at other campuses may not make the cut for the next bond proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2017, 10:35 PM
Texas Jeff Texas Jeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
I just realized something re: parking garage. It probably stems from the SOS impervious cover regulations.
I can understand why they would do that, but in an era where property taxes are as high as they are and Robin Hood is taking so much and Crockett has space for students -- this limitation should just mean we get creative to solve the problem rather than building a parking garage, in my opinion. I do feel for students who can not park on campus at their school, but I feel there are cheaper options.

SOS is a government ordinance. Bowie is a government property. I would be very disappointed to learn that the school district spent taxpayer money on property adjacent to Bowie just to leave it empty to comply with SOS. I hope this is not the case.

If Bowie needs more parking spaces and SOS is the limiting factor, then Bowie and the City of Austin and Austin ISD should work together to find the cheapest possible solution. Of the top of my head, I can think of these solutions:

* Give Bowie an exception to the rule, as a government building.

* Move students to Crockett to free up parking.

* Give out student parking passes until you are out of passes, then stop giving out passes. Student passes could be given out based on seniority or grades or some other factor. Students who get better grades might get on-campus parking. C students ride the bus or negotiate for rides from their A student friends.

* Give parking pass priority to students who agree to bring another student with them.

* If no SOS waiver is possible, remove part of the parking at Burger Center, then use the savings to add parking at Bowie.

Those are all options that I feel are cheaper than building a parking garage at Bowie.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2017, 11:16 PM
Texas Jeff Texas Jeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 16
OK, one more post about the Bowie parking garage idea and I'll stop for today. When googling around this afternoon in the rain, I discovered that Bowie offers reserved parking spaces for seniors for a cash payment:

https://1.cdn.edl.io/OPERaJQrdXfIBTc...qKrdZlf3qU.pdf

The seniors get a reserved, numbered space on campus. Which they then paint to match their personality:

https://www.littlethings.com/painted...arking-spaces/

So, for the entire year, no one else can park in that space. This is an incentive for parents to buy a space for their kid, so that they can paint it. If parking space is at a premium, the campus should not be reserving spaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 3:38 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Jeff View Post
OK, one more post about the Bowie parking garage idea and I'll stop for today. When googling around this afternoon in the rain, I discovered that Bowie offers reserved parking spaces for seniors for a cash payment:

https://1.cdn.edl.io/OPERaJQrdXfIBTc...qKrdZlf3qU.pdf

The seniors get a reserved, numbered space on campus. Which they then paint to match their personality:

https://www.littlethings.com/painted...arking-spaces/

So, for the entire year, no one else can park in that space. This is an incentive for parents to buy a space for their kid, so that they can paint it. If parking space is at a premium, the campus should not be reserving spaces.
Most high schools do that same sort of thing, so I don't see it going away. However, I'm not sure how high schools in dense areas handle this (downtown areas, for instance). Bowie is a bit unique given that it's not in a high-density area, but it is limited on room so a larger surface lot isn't in the cards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2020, 4:50 AM
Echostatic's Avatar
Echostatic Echostatic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: ATX
Posts: 1,360
Reviving the 2017 Bond Thread in Style!

This is an old, old thread. There hasn't been a post in two and a half years. But, being an AISD student myself, I felt the need to update it. This is the most effort I've ever put into a post on this forum, but whatever, I've been into the construction of schools for a long time. This is just the culmination.

As we all know, the 2017 Bond passed. It was pretty much a landslide, at 72-28. Most of these projects have been under construction for a solid year or two now, and some of them are really impressive.

High Schools

Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders
Budget: $70M
Proposed Capacity: 1,015

The 2017 Bond funded a Full Modernization of Ann Richards. The existing campus dates back to the 1950s and was designed as a middle school. Construction on the new campus started in March 2019 and is expected to complete in December 2020. This one makes me a little jealous. Or maybe that's just me being trans. Happy day of visibility, y'all!

Renderings of the new school:



Site progress from early February:


Bowie High School
Budget (for both Phases): $91M
Proposed Capacity: 2,900

The 2017 Bond funded Phase I of the Bowie HS Full Modernization. Phase I consists of a three-story parking structure with rooftop tennis courts. The rooftop tennis courts will replace the existing ground-level courts, as Phase II of the Bowie Renovation will be built on their site.

Construction on the garage started in June 2019, and completion is expected in June 2020. This project has been posted about in the South Austin Projects thread multiple times.

Here are renderings of the garage:


Here is progress as of late February:


Eastside Memorial Early College High School / International High School
Budget: $81M
Proposed Capacity: 800

The 2017 Bond funded a shuffle of some East Austin high schools. Eastside Memorial and International High Schools will be leaving their current Johnston Campus, and moving to a new campus on the site of the Old Anderson High School. The existing school on that site was closed in the 1970s and demolished in late 2018.

The new Eastside Memorial campus will be something unlike any other school in the district. AISD really outdid themselves here. The main school tower is four (!) stories and will also hold the relocated International High School. Construction on the new campus started in December 2018 and is expected to be complete by July 2021.

The existing Johnston Campus will receive $4M of renovations before the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA) moves there in 2021.

Here are some assorted renderings:



Here is current site progress from the same angle as the second rendering:


LBJ Early College High School
Budget: $26M
Proposed Capacity: 1,842

The existing LBJ Campus is split between LBJ High School and LASA. When LASA leaves the LBJ campus in 2021, it will be significantly renovated.

There's not going to be any significant construction, but there is a rendering of the renovated entrance, and it's pretty good looking.


Middle Schools

Blazier Relief School

Technically, this is an elementary school. But I don't like to categorize it like that. So sue me. Blazier's attendance zone will be home to huge new developments in the next decade, with some already under construction. This school will offer Grades 4-6 a separate campus than the K-3 kids at the old Blazier site.

Construction started in May 2019 and should end by August of this year. This will likely be the next school to open in the district. Frankly, I think it looks ugly as hell.

Renderings:



Current site progress:


Murchison Middle School
Budget: $24M
Proposed Capacity: 1,700

The expansion of Murchison will make it the largest middle school in AISD by capacity. For a period of over a decade ending only last school year, Murchison had the highest enrollment of any middle school in the city, and it's been the most overcrowded for much longer than that.

The new expansion will house the 6th grade in their own three-story wing. Currently, the entire 6th grade is housed in portable classrooms. Construction started in June 2019 and is expected to end in January 2021. Some roofing will also be replaced at an additional cost of $1.5M.

Rendering of the 6th grade wing:


Construction progress, with the portable classrooms in shot:


New Northeast Middle School
Budget: $61M
Proposed Capacity: 800

This is the long-awaited Mueller school. A design hasn't been finalized yet, but should be around October of this year. Construction should start in January 2021 and finish in August 2022. It might seem odd to build another school while AISD is losing students, but this will accompany the closing of at least one of the 1950s Northeast Austin Middle Schools.

Elementary Schools

Brentwood Elementary School
Budget: $36M
Proposed Capacity: 696

Brentwood Elementary will undergo a partial renovation, partial rebuild. This solution allows students to remain on-site during the modernization. Given that Brentwood had the lowest FCA score of any school that wasn't literally falling apart, this rebuild is probably a good thing. Construction will start in April 2020 and wrap up by August 2022.

Rendering:


Casis Elementary School
Budget: $35M
Proposed Capacity: 870

As one of two schools to have severe structural damage discovered in 2016, Casis will be fully rebuilt. The new school will be one of the largest Elementary Schools in the city. Construction started in March 2020 and is expected to be completed in August 2022.

Rendering:


Doss Elementary School
Budget: $43M
Proposed Capacity: 870

With one of the tightest schedules of any 2017 Bond project at 1.5 years, the demolition and reconstruction of Doss is expected to be completed by July 2020. Unlike most other rebuilt campuses in the bond program, the existing school couldn't be preserved through construction. For the 2019-2020 school year, Doss students were moved to the Lucy Read Pre-K Campus in portable classrooms.

The new campus will be the largest elementary school in AISD by floor area while still meeting impervious cover restrictions.

Rendering:


Construction progress (Murchison can be seen in the background):


Govalle Elementary School
Budget: $33M
Capacity: 522

Phase I of the project was completed in February of 2020, marking the third school opening of the 2017 Bond Program. Phase II will be completed by August, with demolition of the previous Govalle Elementary complete by June 2020. This one got less publicity than other bond projects, but it's the oldest school to be rebuilt so far.



Menchaca Elementary School
Budget: $33M
Capacity: 870

Menchaca was the first school to open as part of the 2017 Bond. The modernized campus is formed by two buildings with a shared skybridge. The buildings form a courtyard, "creating direct links between the outdoors and learning environments." Sounds pretentious to me. Demolition of the former Menchaca Elementary should be wrapping up in April.



New Southwest Elementary
Budget: $36M
Proposed Capacity: 522

This is a relief school for the heavily overcrowded Kiker and Baranoff Elementary Schools. New construction south of SH 45 filled Kiker to 155% capacity and Baranoff to 120%. That's bordering on absurd.

The new school draws inspiration from the Hill Country. By that, I mean it looks like a mansion, shingled roof and all. Frankly, this design makes me want to go back to Elementary School. They have two skybridges connecting the second floor of the main building to the administration wing. They have an observation deck looking over the Hill Country. They have another nature inspired courtyard. Maybe it's a South Austin thing.

Rendering:


The real beauty of the bunch, the construction photos:



Norman Elementary School
Budget: $25M
Proposed Capacity: 486

Sims Elementary is closing and moving to a shared campus on Norman's site. For the time being, Norman is sharing a campus with Sims on their property while Norman gets modernized. This would probably be more awkward if these weren't elementary schoolers.

Construction started in April 2019 and is expected to finish in January 2021.

Rendering:


Construction progress:


Sanchez Elementary
Budget: $25M
Proposed Capacity: 580

This is the same situation as Norman/Sims, but a few miles south and much more controversial. Metz Elementary is closing, despite only being built 27 years ago. Sanchez will be fully renovated to support both schools. Sanchez will share Metz's campus for the 2020-2021 school year. Even though these are still elementary age kids, this one might be a little awkward.

Construction on the modernized Sanchez/Metz starts in May 2020 and should be complete by August 2021.

Rendering:


T. A. Brown Elementary School
Budget: $31M
Capacity: 522

T. A. Brown was the second school to open as part of the 2017 Bond Program. The original school was probably what led to the bond in the first place, as the sudden closure of the campus after severe structural damage was discovered in 2016 got loads of publicity.

Construction stretched from November 2018 to January 2020, when the school reopened after its closure in late 2016.

__________________
It can be done, if we have the will.

Last edited by Echostatic; Apr 1, 2020 at 4:52 AM. Reason: Screwed up Norman Elementary Renderings
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2020, 4:58 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
I hate that my old middle school is getting replaced. Porter was a heck of a school, but they replaced it with the girls school.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 6:28 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Page Architects gave a Zoom presentation last Friday on Bowie's plans for Athletics and Fine Arts.

Zoom: https://pagethink.zoom.us/rec/share/...VK2qPdh2iAcdpp

Password: 9i#RC6?&

Some floor plans and renderings:









Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 6:30 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
I have no idea why those are so blown up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 5:01 PM
Echostatic's Avatar
Echostatic Echostatic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: ATX
Posts: 1,360
If there's one thing I've learned since joining this forum, it's that image resolution is one of the most frustrating things on the internet.
__________________
It can be done, if we have the will.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 7:51 PM
Echostatic's Avatar
Echostatic Echostatic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: ATX
Posts: 1,360
These are a bit dated, but photos of the new Eastside Memorial campus from August 14th



__________________
It can be done, if we have the will.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 9:38 PM
Armybrat Armybrat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
I hate that my old middle school is getting replaced. Porter was a heck of a school, but they replaced it with the girls school.
I was on the faculty at Porter 1969-70. Milford Davis was the principal at that time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2020, 7:04 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armybrat View Post
I was on the faculty at Porter 1969-70. Milford Davis was the principal at that time.
Just missed my mom, then. She went to Porter, but was already at Crockett in 69-70 (c/o '71).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2020, 11:13 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:16 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.