Lord Kitchener Elementary School PAC

On 16-Nov-09 the Heritage Commission voted unanimously to oppose the demolition of the brick masonry building, reversing their 18-Jun-07 resolution that accepted the demolition for seismic upgrade.  This can delay the upgrade.  PAC wants to prevent more delay – already delayed 24 months from the original plan.  Please help get a no delay message to City Council.  Please send the following email or call the city councillors and mayor.

—————————————————————————————

Dear Vancouver City Councillors,

As a parent of a Lord Kitchener student I am very upset by the Heritage Commission’s 16-Nov-09 resolution that opposes the planned seismic upgrade of Kitchener School.  This resolution reverses the Heritage Commission resolution of 29 months ago (18-Jun-07) that accepted the replacement of one of the Kitchener school buildings in accordance with the MOE – VSB 2005 seismic upgrade feasibility report.

Much time, effort, and money have been spent, based on the Heritage Commission 18-Jun-07 resolution.  The Heritage Commission reversal will cause further delay in the seismic upgrade, which has already been delayed 24 months from the originally published VSB schedule.  Also the reversal will necessitate the expenditure of much more effort and money.  This is unacceptable.

I want and expect City of Vancouver Councillors to direct City Development Services staff to proceed with the approval of the Kitchener School seismic upgrade development proposal in accordance with the current MOE and VSB recommendation.

Our children deserve to have a seismically safe learning environment without the further additional delay caused by revisiting past decisions.  Thank-you in advance for your support.

Yours truly,

—————————————————————————-
Please include your Name, Address, Vancouver, BC, Postal Code

Send the email to: (cut and paste the following and put into the To field)

gregor.robertson@vancouver.ca; clranton@vancouver.ca; clrcadman@vancouver.ca; clrchow@vancouver.ca; clrdeal@vancouver.ca; clrjang@vancouver.ca; clrlouie@vancouver.ca; clrmeggs@vancouver.ca; clrreimer@vancouver.ca; clrstevenson@vancouver.ca; clrwoodsworth@vancouver.ca

On 16-Nov-09 the Heritage Commission voted unanimously to oppose the demolition of the brick masonry building, reversing their 18-Jun-07 resolution that accepted the demolition for seismic upgrade.  This can delay the upgrade.  Below are answers to some questions you may have.

Q.    Does Lord Kitchener really need a seismic upgrade?

Yes, and quickly.  MOE evaluated the masonry building as HIGH risk, its most severe classification.  Professional engineers have determined there are major seismic deficiencies.  In 2004 VSB ranked our school as the 22nd most at risk out of all the 108 VSB schools.  Since then some of the highest risk schools have been upgraded so now it is Kitchener’s turn.  In 2005 a MOE press release ranked our school as one of the “top 80” most risky BC schools.  In May 2005 Maclean’s Magazine wrote that the “chance that a massive earthquake and tsunami will devastate the Lower Mainland are frighteningly high.”

Q.    Why do the VSB and PAC not seem to care about heritage?

VSB and PAC care about heritage.  The frame building is rated “Heritage A” and we are pleased it is being retained.  The masonry building, rated “Heritage B” (lower), will not be retained since it would cost ~ $3.6 M more to retain and even after upgrade would not be as safe & energy efficient as a new building.

Q.    How much more would it cost to save the masonry building?  Why won’t MOE–VSB pay for it?

It would cost about $3.6 M more to retain the masonry building and even after upgrade it would not be as safe and energy efficient as a new building (a 2005 feasibility study indicated it would cost $17.5M to renovate both buildings (including cost of temporary portable trailers), versus $13.9M to renovate the frame building and replace the masonry building).  There are about 700 BC schools in need of costly seismic upgrades, hence MOE will only fund the most cost efficient alternative (MOE position even before the recession).  VSB could only pay the extra cost if it can get extra money.  Selling part of our school property is one way to get money, but then we would have much less outdoor play area – it is already smaller than the MOE standard for our student population.  In 2007 parents decided against the sale of some of our school land.

Q.    Doesn’t the Heritage Commission know there is no money available for restoration?

Yes.  One Commissioner suggested the masonry building might be saved by converting it into condos.  A new school could be built west of the condos, which children could go around to get to the playfield.  There are possibly other options for more money but undoubtedly any alternatives would take more time.

Q.    What are the pros and cons of a new building versus retaining the masonry building?

(1)    A new building will be built to a higher standard and be expected to be usable after an earthquake.  A renovated building will allow occupants to exit after an earthquake but would not be expected to be usable after an earthquake. The community would benefit from a reusable structure, not just students.
(2)    Constructing a new building would mean children and staff would not have to use portable trailers or live through a dusty and noisy renovation taking 24 months or more.
(3)    Constructing a new building is faster – about 16-20 months.  If we try to save the masonry building it would require much more time and effort to lobby MOE + VSB and there is no guarantee of success.

Q.    Existing buildings have embodied energy that is wasted when the buildings are torn down.
Isn’t it more environmentally friendly to re-use the masonry building?

It is not certain that re-use is environmentally better.  A lot depends on how much of a building can be reused and to what extent a building is upgraded beyond seismic safety – e.g. new insulation, heating, etc.  Experience indicates heritage buildings may be so structurally deficient that for an effective seismic upgrade only a façade is retained and the rest of the building has to be demolished.  Even if more than a façade is retained significant non-seismic upgrades would be required to reduce operating energy use.  For the masonry building, even after seismic upgrade as envisioned by MOE–VSB *, it would not be as energy efficient as a new school which will be built to the very energy efficient LEED Gold standard.

* A VSB 2005 seismic upgrade study estimated it would cost $17.5M to renovate both our school buildings (compared to $13.9M to renovate the frame building and replace the masonry building).  The $17.5M estimate only included the cost to fix seismic structural deficiency and did not include money for new insulation, heating, lighting, etc.  VSB would have to fund non-seismic updates from its annual facilities grant budget from MOE.  In September 2009 the province cancelled all schools’ annual facilities grants.