On the January "Start a new post," Anonymous wrote:
"I was outside of Schenley and observed numerous students, standing in the cold outside and unable to see the game. Getting there early isn't a real solution snce it's a zero sum game- only a fixed number will fit and people will just get there earlier and earlier. Is this really how we want our students spending their time, sitting and waiting for a game to begin? (Theoretically they could do homework but you know how that goes.)"
January 18, 2010 9:50 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
The Reizenstein facility has a small gym, OK for a middle school but not really suited for the number of people attending a high school game.
If you are talking about Schenley-Perry, the game was sold out. If you are talking about the middle school game, it was closed to spectators. Just what is your point in mis-stating the situation.
When the "original" Schenley high school got its new gym, it was way too small for a high school gym, especially since Schenley had such great teams. Someone dropped the ball on that one. I have to agree with Questioner that the Reizenstein/Schenley gym is not high school caliber either.
Why was the middle school game closed to spectators?
I too would like to know why a game was closed to spectators.
This was a playoff game and I believe that the game was closed to spectators--read, students--so as to quell any potential problems. Aren't there more important things to get your underwear in a bunch over?
Is it standard procedure to close playoff games to students? Has this happened before? If they cannot keep a single middle school game under control, how can they expect to manage Peabody area kids going to Westinghouse?
Oh anonymous, how I do wish I knew who you were!
You seem to be both missing the point and yet angry that others see the point! The gym is too small -- and yes, so was the old Schenley gym (though I don't know relative numbers for size) and yes, games have sold out before. But it's something that should be considered when looking at how appropriate a building is -- especially when the building is now serving a middle school and high school population.
Closing a middle school game due to fears of "potential problems" -- you do realize that does nothing to make parents feel good about this school, nor does it encourage anyone to think, gosh those city schools sure do have it together now, guess I'll send my kid there again.
Offhand, it would seem to me that the closed gym thing is being overblown. As a former basketball player, I can remember my school playing parents-only-as-spectators games against a local rival in the 70's and another rival with the idea that absolutely no spectators whatsoever will be allowed. I don't think this is anything new and it could have a great many reasons other than "avoiding potential problems".
That said--and again--I am going back to my time as a player and coach, there are many, many bandboxes masquerading as gyms in the area. You haven't lived until you've run into the wall which doubles as the baseline or the sideline has an overhang where fans routinely shower you with God knows what.
I'm not one to defend the decisions and lack of foresight which often best describes thinking, but I'd wonder about some of the comments this time.
The comments seem reasonable- someone asked why the game was closed and someone else responded that it was to quell potential problems. This led to the question of whether it might similarly be best to prevent potential problems by not mixing neighborhoods that have issues with eachother.
Lack of foresight is obviously a big problem and not one that can be laid at the feet of the current administration. However, lets get a list together of the most inadequate gyms and reference the facilities study grades given by the independent consultant. It seems like a school such as Brookline K-8 where, when the expansion through grade 8 was announced, parents threw coniptions (sp?) about the undersized gym. Not being from that area maybe we are not hearing the continued complaints or...maybe the school offers so much more academically the size of the gym is not of any concern now?
When was the expansion announced? Has construction been completed? And, was any reason given for the small size (was it just to save money, or were there other reasons)?
sorry to confuse you. The building did not increase in size. The building went form K-5 to being a K-8 during the last reorganization. I have never seen the gym but accomodating more and larger students was a contentious issue with parents.
It seems like in most cases parents would have preferred to keep their K-5's. Some of the schools that went from K-5 to K-8 are returning back to K=5's as the 6-8 grade span is combined with high schools instead (which is also creating difficulties).
Re: the continued complaints, this is the time, now when there is a focus on facilities, to make these issues known. This blog is a start, but it would be good to see these parents come out to a public hearing, or write a letter to the editor, or ask one of the reporters to do a story on issues with sports or gym space as more kids and wider grade spans are moved into buildings. Several people spoke about this issue last evening in connection with the Reizenstein facility.
How about if PPS works with the city and Sports & Exhibition Authority and obtains the "Civic Arena" as a place where high school games can be played. They can have four ore more games per afternoon / evening / night. Another court could be put in there for JV games too. NOT all the games could or should be played there. But, the Civic Arena is a nice venue and could be more like CUPPLES is to football and soccer. A common ground.
There is not the kind of money needed for the arena to become the sports center for the district.
Trouble with getting some of those most vocal complainers from the last reorganization to now step forward is their kids have moved on to high school. Those newer to K-8 buildings only know what they have, not what they might be missing now that the building is a K-8.
I really like Mark's idea for the arena and if it were anything approaching a perfect world, we'd have some local leaders who'd make it happen. It just makes complete sense for hoops. As it is, I am dreaming, but can you imagine being able to convert the surface as they do now? Hoops. Volleyball. Jeez...even soccer.
If only Mark Rauterkus had Bill Gates' money!!
The Civic Arena building is paid for. The court is there. The income stream is there too. To build a new arena is hard to fathom. But, to preserve what is already there -- and to get a couple of other income streams (parking, food, tix) is valid. Plus, you can always make $ on WRESTLING and Tracktor Pulls.
This could be a real step toward solving the gymnasium shortage problem. Many in the Hill community do seem to favor restoring the "grid" that was there b/f the arena, though. Maybe the benefits of the grid could be weighed against the benefits of having a place for HS games and other events.
A few more thoughts- although it doesn't address all the problems with gym space in 6-12 schools, the arena is centrally located and has enough space to allow all the fans to attend. So instead of Obama traveling out to Brashear, they both travel partway, to the arena. Parents could reach games easily and it would allow other teams at a school to go on with their practices as scheduled.
Send the Arena idea to Rob Pfaffmann!
Done. Rob and I are going to have lunch soon. :) The only thing better, is if he buys.
SZtill without someone to cover the costs of maintaining the property, insurance, security...the arena option is only reasonable if you do open it to other school districts or events.
Exactly. We think of the arena as a place that will just sit there and should be donated. Ok, then who plays utilities and constant upkeep on an aging facility? Who pays to staff the arena for events, from vendors to ushers to guys doing the carrying and lifting?
Who pays insurance costs and the like?
What about manning the parking lot?
Security?
I love this idea, but I also know city hall. Here's a group of political hacks going after the Merton Center for having the audacity to protest G20 and the gall to complain about kids getting roughed up for just standing there. Here's an idea---let's hit them with a $6000 bill for police overtime.
Yeah---these local leaders will be glad to do something for the kids.
I guess we would have to know what the cost per event would be for parking and security, as well as the yearly fixed costs just to keep the building; then see if the yearly fixed costs divided by the expected number of events would be an amount that sponsors would be willing to pay along with any excess event cost over ticket sales. It's worth doing the math, anyway.
Post a Comment