New Portobello High School- Where and how?

by **seanie** » 25 Aug 2006, 23:03

A wee while ago I worked briefly on a feasibilty study for a site for a new primary school. It was to be located in the midst of a housing development and two plots had been suggested as possible sites.

I took the plan of an existing school and overlaid it on the areas suggested. One was a non-starter because the site sloped too much. There was no way of locating the school without extortionate relandscaping so that option was dismissed pretty quiclky.

The other site was more promising. It still took a bit of work. The plan I was working with was flipped, rotated, bits taken off and added elsewhere, squeezed and shifted. The plans I produced were rough and ready, but we came down to basically two site options.

The first sloping site was out of the window. We had a workable if compromised solution on the other site. And we had a promising alternative if the plot boundaries were shifted a bit. So I produced two draft/outline plans, of the two latter options, and passed them up the chain for discussions I wasn't party to.

And that process took me a morning.

If you have enough information at your disposal it's very easy to make a quick comparative judgement of that kind and an outline plan may be part of that process. But I wouldn't read too much into the existence of "a plan" showing the possible arrangement of the schools.

The process of establishing a site could still take months. Establishing a brief the same. And real development of a design could only take place after that.

by **Alison Connelly** » 28 Aug 2006, 12:54

by **Rex_Mundi** » 28 Aug 2006, 15:11

Perhaps, dear lady, there are no other options!

[quote]"The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously.â€

by **Marguerite-the-Poet** » 28 Aug 2006, 17:40

by **seanie** » 28 Aug 2006, 18:18

by **Bob Jefferson** » 04 Sep 2006, 10:46

by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Sep 2006, 18:52

by **Alison Connelly** » 05 Sep 2006, 20:18

by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Sep 2006, 20:37

by **Porty** » 06 Sep 2006, 14:15

by **Porty** » 06 Sep 2006, 14:21

by **Poppy** » 06 Sep 2006, 14:37

Evening News "exclsive" :roll:

by **Porty** » 06 Sep 2006, 14:45

What park do they mean?

by **Poppy** » 06 Sep 2006, 15:21

by **seanie** » 06 Sep 2006, 18:19

I don't see option A being very promising.

It's significantly more expensive, involves the disruption of a decant, with a resolution more likely to be compromised by the site constraints, and delays the redevelopment of PHS to the prior relocation of St Johns.

Given that the condition of PHS appears to have been the primary driver in this that's a little unsatisfactory.

And you have to admire how nimbly the issue of funding's been sidestepped.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Sep 2006, 21:44

The report and its various appendices are now all available to read online in pdf format on the I have made them available as separate documents which makes them much easier to read than the Council's own online version.

If all this isn't enough for you to digest, the Council have also commissioned three separate feasibility studies. The first report evaluates all the potential sites considered for PHS. A second report does likewise with St Johns and the third report concerns itself with a decant strategy for PHS, should the decision be made to rebuild onsite.

Copies of these are available in the library. I will attempt to summarise these reports and obtain pdf versions of the most relevant drawings.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Sep 2006, 09:42

by **Porty** » 07 Sep 2006, 16:23

I hope the Headie keeps her office blinds closed, if not she may catch a glimpse of Portyman coming out the shower.

by **Maria** » 07 Sep 2006, 17:44

by **Porty** » 08 Sep 2006, 09:43

by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Sep 2006, 17:27

by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Sep 2006, 17:37

by **gilo** » 08 Sep 2006, 17:45

by **seanie** » 08 Sep 2006, 18:37

by **seanie** » 08 Sep 2006, 21:38

by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Sep 2006, 22:20

by **seanie** » 08 Sep 2006, 22:44

by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Sep 2006, 22:59

by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Sep 2006, 15:07

From today's EN Letters Page:

by **Dave Connelly** » 09 Sep 2006, 18:27

St Johns study showed that it would be three million on site, seven million on the park. Money to be saved there?

by **Dave Connelly** » 09 Sep 2006, 18:49

by **Maria** » 09 Sep 2006, 19:34

by **Dave Connelly** » 09 Sep 2006, 19:39

by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Sep 2006, 19:44

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Who is online