Williamstown Debates Elementary School Playground / Williamstown.com

Your Comments

Williamstown.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary.

4 Comments

Add Comment

There never was a plan for a two story building. What people are referring to was a conceptual drawing. Once the school committee issued its RFP, the actual plan was drawn to those specifications, which included energy efficiency, etc... and THAT is how the footprint for the building became 40% larger than was originally anticipated. As for the playground, even under the mythical two story building, it would have been moved. This is a total red herring. If the NIMBYs who are upset about the building design muddy the water enough, it will delay the project by a year because construction has to begin during a summer break. And IF the delay is significant, it may jeopardize one of the major gifts ($1 million) that has a time frame on it. This is about a few people who always opposed the project and see a second chance, combined with a few people who always think they know better than the common folk and want their fingers in the pie. (Perhaps this is why people were - all of a sudden - suggesting that Williams, The Clark and Mass MoCA should consult on the design? If the Paresky Center or the Clark's additions are any indication, their collective design judgement is less than stellar.) Just build that damn thing like we voted on, and ordered you to do, at Town Meeting two years ago. This is getting stupid.
from: Not Quite	on: 11-21-2010 11:00PM I Agree (29) - I Disagree (22)

“There never was a plan for a two-story building” is true. There was however a concept for a building that respected the architectural integrity of its adjacent buildings, took up a small footprint thereby maximizing green space, and appeared to be a natural appendage to the elementary school. The number of stories is not the point. The point is that people pledged money partly because it looked like such a natural fit that it belonged there. To say it was ‘just an idea” is true, but good ideas raise money, garner support, and open doors. Bad ideas, like the current proposal that splits the field, destroys the playground, detracts from the beauty of the school, and doesn’t make sense to anyone outside the inner circle of the youth center, tends to create controversy. Did the RFP say to make as large a presence on the most active piece of the property with the most dramatically different building materials from existing structures as possible? Did it say to uproot the playground for $30K of donated money? Why continue to point to the RFP as if it is law when the youth center’s application that came two months later promised a brick façade, 12,000 square feet, and only some of the playground moved to the other side of the existing playground? This is the application that won approval and the departure from it is what is controversial. If what went into the application was not a firm idea how do you expect the winning of the proposal to be firm? Couldn’t you just as easily say that winning was “conceptual”? Throwing around bumper sticker sized names like NIMBY, know-it-all, and hater may rally the increasingly shrinking inner circle where admitting mistakes could be seen as weakness but the fact that mistakes can’t be admitted to is telling. The two year schedule was for fundraising, not because of opposition. The fundraising is now five months later than promised and with all the name calling will likely be further derailed. How can they expect to run an organization when half of the future members are mad before the doors open? Perhaps there is one name that we do deserve to be called. That word is gullible. We were naïve to believe that the youth center team would act the same way after they raised $3 million as they had before raising $3 million. Please forgive us for taking their winning ideas as executable promises. People are genuinely upset because there was a bait and switch. Nobody likes bait and switch. If there are good reasons for it, let’s hear them instead of demonizing sensible people who believe that non-profits are not automatically entitled to public land grants but must carefully earn them. Perhaps if they weren’t so paranoid about opening up the floodgates of discourse, they could get back to doing what the people ordered two years ago, getting a sensible and sustainable youth center built on school grounds that respects its aesthetic, functional, and cultural environment.
from: quite	on: 11-24-2010 11:32PM I Agree (12) - I Disagree (18)

"People are genuinely upset." All 15 or 20 of them. Unfortunately that group includes at least one member of the school committee (who considers herself an expert at everything and knows how to work the media) and several NIMBYs (yes, there is that dreaded word, but the majority who spoke against the center were, indeed, residents of Church, School or Southworth streets) who have the ear of two other committee members. It is a very small group making a very loud noise, acting as though the new youth center was a nuclear waste dump. Most of them would never consider sending their children to "daycare". So it is no skin of their nose if it takes another decade to get this done. I hope you are happy when this whole project blows up because that is probably what is going to happen when you send the youth center back to the drawing board. Congrats in advance. It will be your fault.
from: Not Quite	on: 11-25-2010 06:46PM I Agree (17) - I Disagree (12)

Quite's comments about strong "bumper sticker" language are a bit odd considering she or he is using terms like bait and switch, which, when applied in certain cases, is actually a crime. And where did the term "hater" come from? The only time I've heard that recently was from Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars. Based upon the drawings that the school has put on their web site, nobody is splitting the playing fields. That is simply not true. For all the lobbying that those who oppose the proposed design have done, I have heard a lot more resentment towards the "anti" crowd than I have seen movement in their direction. And I would agree that several "know it alls", again, not a term used in the first post, have decided that they should have been on the design and finance committees of the Youth Center from the beginning. I am not saying the Youth Center shouldn't make some concessions if needed, but it seems very clear that the anti's want everything on the table thrown away and clean slate to start over.
from: Patch	on: 11-26-2010 02:57PM I Agree (15) - I Disagree (8)