X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <41122459.1020704@ll.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:13:13 -0400
From: Fred Knight <knight@ll.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lea Anderson <leaanders@comcast.net>
Subject: comments on option selection
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lea,

Here are Fred's thoughts on deciding between options 2 and 3.

Options 2 and 3 are pretty much the same: same price, ~same construction
time, same educational performance in the same space. Both have similar
commons area surrounded by gym, theater, and field house. With the new
scheme of not moving the track in option 3, both have little disruption
of athletics.

What criteria can be used to decide between options 2 and 3?

Favoring option 3:
+3: arts department is close to the theater.
+3: no need to relocate cafeteria into field house; phasing is easier.
+3: Per HMFH's comparison sheet, the completed project is rated higher
for "ideal" education space, has better operations & maintenance, uses
space more efficiently.
++3: Per HMFH's comparison sheet, during construction, option 3 is
shorter, has less impact on education, has fewer moves, requires less
temporary space and less schedule risk, and has better site logistics.

Favoring option 2:
+2: option 2 has more campus-like feel.
+2: estimated cost of option 2 is slightly less.
+2: option 2 may be more sellable to voters because it saves more of the
existing campus.
+2: option 2 may provide longer-lasting buildings because some existing
buildings are better build than new ones (Fred's bias).
+2: option 2 could garner 4 more ($2M savings) SBA Incentive Percentage
Points for incorporating reconstruction.

Comments:
Given the pros and cons above, I'd say option 3 has the edge.
Subjectively, I lean toward option 2, because I really think it might be
more appealing to the voters and has the potential for more
reimbursement. With either option, I'm confident that HMFH can deliver
a great new high school design.

Caveats:
Independent of the choice, success on this project will be determined by
carrying through on HSBC work to justify our choice. We have some hard
questions to answer. Why are the cost and size of both options near the
top end the SBA standards (in contrast to the Middle School project)?
Are we confident that benchmarking with other projects places this one
in the mainstream? Finally, are we confident that we have assessed
educational priorities sufficiently to justify the elements of the
project? All of these should continue to be addressed as the chosen
option is defined further.

Conclusion:
Option 3 has an edge, but either option 2 or option 3 is viable. (Now
I'll look at Joe Lewin's comments.)

Fred

--
Fred Knight
home: fred@knightway.org | 508 877 3685 | 508 877 0489
web: www.knightway.org/Fred
work: knight@ll.mit.edu | 781 981 2027 | fax 781 981 4608