Rt of Its Plan for Urban Renewal in Boston, the Redevelopment Authority Initiated This Study of the School Buildings of the City

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 025 936 EF 002 716 A Report on the Schools of Boston 1962. Boston Redevelopment Authority, Mass.; Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. Pub Date May 62 Note 306p. EDRS Price MF-$1.25 HC-$15.40 Descriptors-Ccsts, Educational Finance, Enrollment, Enrollment Projections, *Facility Case Studies, Grade Organization *School Buildings, *School Conditions, *School Systems, *Urban Renewal As p;rt of its plan for urban renewal in Boston, the Redevelopment Authority initiated this study of the school buildings of the city. The study is basedupon an intensive anysis of enrollment projections, the conditions of existing schools, the grade organization, and the impact of urban renewalon individual areas and on the city as a whole. Recommendations are made relative to elementary, intermediate, and high schools. Site locations, costs, and financing are also discussed. An appendix features financial data as well as the methodologies employed in population and enrolhent prediction and..capacity computation. (FPO) 'JAW ogroNciffook -1962 BOSTON SCHOOLS - 1962 A REPORT ON THESCHOOLS OF BOSTON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. MAY 1962 CITY OF BOSTON JOHN F. COLLINS, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL Christopher A. Iannella,President James S. Coffey Patrick F. McDonough William J. Foley, Jr. Gabriel F. Piamonte Peter F. Hines Thomas A. Sullivan Jdhn E. Kerrigan John J. Tierney, Jr. This study was undertaken under a contractbetween the Boston Redevelopment Authority and Harvard'University, and with the cooperation of the Mayor,the School Commit- tee, and the School Buildings Commissionof the City of Boston. SCHOOL COMMITTEE Joseph Lee, Chairman Thomas S. Eisenstadt Arthur J. Gartland Mrs. Louise Day Hicks William E. O'Connoi, Dr. Frederick J. Gillis, Superintendent SCHOOL BUILDINGS COMMISSION James F. Dinneen, Chairman Isadore H. Y. Muchnick Judge Joseph F. Feeney William A. McPherson, Superintendent of Construction REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Rt. Rev. Monsignor Francis J.Lally, Chairman Stephen E. McCloskey, ViceChairman James G. Colbert, Treasurer Melvin J. Massucco John Ryan Edward J. Logue, DevelopmentAdministrator STUDY STAFF Cyril G. Sargent, Director Robert D. Forrest,* Field Coordinator Vincent F. Conroy William H. Pear, II John Ellis David H. Ponitz Joseph D. Lapchick Lino Zambrano James E. Mauch Consultants: Edward N. Helfeld, Chief Planner,Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania Dean K. Whitla, Director, Officeof Tests and Measurements, Harvard University *Deceased March 9, 1962 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Introduction Digest Part I I-1 Chapter I: The Schools ofBoston - Then and Now 1-22 Chapter II: The Elements ofThis Study 1-31 Chapter III: The Plan forBoston 1-57 Chapter IV: The Cost andFinancing of the Program Part II: Area Reports 11-3 Charlestown 11-13 South End 11-22 East Boston andOrient Heights 11-31 Downtown North,West End, and BeaconHill 11-39 Downtown 11447 Back Bay 11-53 Parker Hill andThe Fenway 11-61 Jamaica Plain andMoss Hill 11-69 Roxbury - NorthDorchester 11-93 South Boston 11-102 Brighton II-111 West Roxbury 11-115 Roslindale 11-123 Hyde Park 11-132 Dorchester Appendices A. Population and Enrollment Prediction Methodology A-1 B. Population and Enrollment Statistics B-1 C. Capacity Camputation Methodology C-1 D. Boston High Schools D-1 E. Financial Data E-1 Figures 1. Pupil Spaces in Oldest and Newest Schools: 1920-1960 facing page 1-25 2. Pupil Spaces in Oldest and Newest Schools After Program: 1960-1975 facing page 1-26 3. Campus High School: Functional Organization and Phasing facing page I.41)1 4. Ardhitectural Perspective of Campus High School following page I-41)1 5. Schematic Diagram of Elementary Playfields facing page 1-50 6. Sdhamatic Diagram of Intemediate Playfields facing page 1-51 Tables 1. Organization of Existing High Schools 1-27 2. Recammended School Abandonments 1-29, 30 3. Summary of Recommended Construction by Years 1-46 4. Elmentary School Site Sizes 1-50 5. Junior High School Site Sizes 1-50 6. Massachusetts Per Pupil School ConstructionCosts 1-58 7.. The Cost of the Building Program 1-59 8. State Aids and Debt Service 1-62 9. Site Requirements for School Construction 1-64 D-1 Map: Existing High Schools inBoston facing page Credits: Photographs on Page I-55 Top: Virginia Metal Products, Inc. 355 Lexington Avenue New York 17, New York Bottom: Departments of Architecture andCivil and Sanitary Engineerimg(Damountable School Project), MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, 77 MassachusettsAvenue, Cambridge 39, Massachusetts PREFACE This school report offers recommendations for a modern school plant for the City of Boston. It is the result of a careful ap- praisal of the existing buildings, a projection of future public school enrollments, and a study of the fiscal implications of the recommended program for action. Boston's last school survey was conducted in 1953. At that time major recommendations were addressed both to the closing of schools, thus reducing excess school capacity then extant, and to the building of new schools to replace old and obsolete structures. The initial recommendations Which concerned abandonmentswere adopt- ed almost completely, and 16 buildings were closed atonce. In the meantime the City has embarked upon an urban renewal program directed toward rebuilding the community, arresting blight and decay, and creating an urban environment where human aspirations ay find their full expression. Significant population changes since 1953 also reqaire a fresh examination of the schools in order to insure an efficient program of abandonment and construction. For the study staff I wish to express our appreciation to the School Committee for cooperating with the study, and particularly to Dr. Gillis, the Board of Superintendents, and the members of the central administration staff, the principals, teachers, and custodi- ans of the Boston schools for their unfailing cooperation. The Mem- bers of the School Building Commission, Mr. McPherson, and members of his staff were similarly generous with their time and assistance. Special acknowledgment is accorded Monsignor O'Leary, Diocesan Sup- erintendent of Schools and the members of his staff who suppliedus ix with data for the parochial schools. And finally to the members of the Boston Redevelopment Authority staff, and especially to Francis E. 0,Brien and Raymond Rothermel, who spent many hours with us in our at- tempts to relate the sdhool program to the urban renewal plans, we express our thanks. During the latter phases of the study, the staff suffered a seri- ous loss in the death of Robert D. Forrest.His work was of central importance, and we have missed him both professionally and personally. This report points out the urgency of the pr;:sentschool building situation. The program which is recommended is but commensurate with the need for immediate improvement. It is the hope of the staff that the citizens of Boston will recognize the need for action and will proceed to meet the situations with both vision and courage. INTRODUCTION Boston, like almost every other older American city has a school plant which, particularly in its older neighborhoods, is over-aged, worn out, and outmoded. .For too many years in the re- cent past Boston has built too few public schools. Now as Boston ambarks on its Urban Renewal Program, it is significant that early in the development of this major and unique attempt to revitalize the City, the Redevelopment Authority should look to the schools. In so doing, they have given recognition to the significance of good schools in encouraging families to remain in the city. It is significant also that in ambarking on such a key element in the renewal program, the desirability of having a comprehensive plan and program of school development was considered essential. Boston has long cherished public education. In 1848 Horace Mann said that "in schoolhouses Massachusetts might well be called 1 a model for theworld." But maintaining a leading position requires constant evaluation and re-evaluation and action for im- provament. Boston cannot afford to maintain a school plant that is not in every way capable of providing a safe, healthy environment which in every way is capable of providing the best type of educational program for the children and youth of the community. 1. Henry Barnard, School Architecture,Derby and Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 18551 p. 76. xi Perhaps there is no better way ofconveying the City's intent to improve neighborhoodsthan to express this in termsof its concern for thechildren and youth of the city. The school building uniquely bespeaks this concern. Moreover, it can provide notonly an attractivephysical environment for children butit can also make available spaces for comunity programsfor adults, civic organiza- tions, and social groups.Well designed schools on adequatesites, which are centers of community activity, may gofar in arresting blight and in improving neighborhoodswhere residents must establish new confidence intheir community. But to achieve a modern schoolplant requires a substantial capital expenditure. By coordinating this programwith urban renewal, it is possible to effectsubstantial economies. Indeed, it is not too much to say thatthe schools of a city need urbanrenewal, and conversely that urbanrenewal

Load more