ARLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT...2018/12/04 · Strong Like Like Neutral Dislike Strong...

D E C E M B E R 4 T H 2 0 1 8

ARLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT

Community Feedback on Schematic Design Concepts

www.ahsbuilding.org

http://www.ahsbuilding.org/

12/4/18ARLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT

• Gather community feedback on exterior design concepts, site plan and reuse/re-creation of historic elements

• Gather feedback from general community prior to the 12/4 Building Committee meeting

• Continue to increase awareness about the project

• Gather feedback from 1,000 community members

Goals


• 1,442 respondents

• 3% responded at forum, 97% online

• Only 1% completed paper and online form

• 26% attended forum or watched on ACMi

• Includes 57 Teachers, 55 Students

3

Demographics

12/4/18ARLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT 4

Demographics

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

No children in APS

Children graduated from APS

Children attend private school

Arlington High School

Ottoson Middle School

Gibbs School

Elementary APS

Children not yet in APS

# of Respondents

Do you have children?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

75+

65 - 74

55 - 64

45 - 54

30 - 44

18 - 29

<18

What is your age?


• Design Concept Options

• Positive about Option A, Neutral about Options B & C

• Entrance and Aesthetics are important

• 3% rated all three options a 1 (Strong Dislike)

• Reuse/re-creation of historical elements

• Community split: ~30% important, ~30% less important, ~30% irrelevant

• Site – overall positive

• 75% like front green while only 14% dislike parking, traffic flow

5

High Level Summary


• 52% of respondents left comments

• 41% of comments related to architecture

• Comments supporting a new building were nearly triple comments expressing desire to keep original buildings (115 to 43)

• Getting the cost lower was a significant concern

• There was a strong desire to prioritize maintaining field space (i.e. Peirce Practice) over increasing parking for the school and DPW

• ~ 2.5% commented that they're unhappy (design choices, process, in general)

6

High Level Summary – Open Response Comments


All Options – Individual Rating Summary

Strong Like Like Neutral Dislike Strong Dislike

Option BOption A Option C

Respondents rated each option individually.


Option A – Overall Rating 3.4

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Vision of futureFits fabric

AestheticsMaterials

Classroom WingAuditorium Wing

Entrance

I Like/Agree...

StrongDisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree StrongAgree


Option A – Which Element Weighed in Decision?

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Vision of future

Fits fabric

Aesthetics

Materials

Classroom Wing

Auditorium Wing

Entrance


Option A – What Does Option Evoke for You?

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Uninspirational

Unattractive

Welcoming

Academic

Historic/Traditional

Number of Respondents (note: respondents could select multiple items)


Option B – Overall Rating 2.8

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


AestheticsMaterials


Entrance

I Like/Agree...

StrongDisagree



Option B – Which Element Weighed in Decision?

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Vision of future

Fits fabric

Aesthetics

Materials

Classroom Wing

Auditorium Wing

Entrance


Option B – What Does Option Evoke for You?

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Welcoming

21st Century/Modern

Uninspirational

Trendy/Faddish

Unattractive



Option C – Overall Rating 2.9

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0


AestheticsMaterials


Entrance

I Like/Agree...

StrongDisagree



Option C – Which Element Weighed in Decision?

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Vision of future

Fits fabric

Aesthetics

Materials

Classroom Wing

Auditorium Wing

Entrance


Option C – What Does Option Evoke for You?

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Welcoming

Futuristic

21st Century/Modern

Unattractive

Trendy/Faddish



Overall – How Important are Elements?

1 2 3 4 5

Vision of future

Fits Arlington

Aesthetics

Materials

Classroom Wing

Auditorium Wing

Entrance

Irrelevant Less

Important

Somewhat

Important

Important Very

Important


Historical Element Reuse/Re-creation - OverallVery Important Important Somewhat Important Less Important Irrelevant

22%

13%

14%17%

34%

Columns

18%

14%

14%19%

35%

Arches19%

12%

15%20%

34%

Clock Tower

10%

8%

15%

26%

41%

Fusco Entrance


Historical Element Reuse/Re-creation - Location

25.3%

11.4%

14.4%15.4%

33.4%

Entrance4.8%

10.5%

17.3%

30.0%

37.4%

Elsewhere on Exterior4.3%

8.3%

15.0%

29.9%

42.5%

Inside

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Less Important Irrelevant


Site Plan – Transportation Elements

1 2 3 4 5

Drop-off and pickup areas

Parking

Vehicle flow

Connection to Bike Path

Strong

Dislike

Dislike Neutral Like Strong

Like

*Total % respondents rating as

Like Neutral Dislike

88.1% 8.2% 3.7%

53.6% 32.3% 14.1%

46.0% 39.7% 14.3%

58.8% 30.5% 10.7%

*Like = rated 4 or 5, Dislike = rated 1 or 2


Site Plan – Other Elements

1 2 3 4 5

Amphitheater

Courtyards, outdoor spaces

Improvements to Ball Fields

Front Green

StrongDislike

Dislike Neutral Like StrongLike

*Total % respondents rating asLike Neutral Dislike

74.3% 14.3% 11.4%

52.4% 39.9% 7.7%

80.5% 12.6% 6.9%

70.0% 19.8% 10.3%

*Like = rated 4 or 5, Dislike = rated 1 or 2


Questions?

Strong Like Like Neutral Dislike Strong Dislike

Option BOption A Option C

ARLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT...2018/12/04 · Strong Like Like Neutral Dislike Strong...

Documents

Transcript of ARLINGTON HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT...2018/12/04 · Strong Like Like Neutral Dislike Strong...