A Philosophy of School Building Cost

( If you haae a friend, on your local school board, please ash ,, hirn to read this paper. It utas written to prornote tar saztings and, sound, ed,ucation. Incidentally, it promotes LUMBER.)

'; '

By Wilbur Barr Barr Lurnber Company

Santa Ana, California

Square foot cost of school buildings need not exceed square foot builder's cost of modest houses in the same area.

Frugality has good standing in the American tradition. It does not mean parsimony, but rather the absence of ostentation. It should have its due place in American education and one such place is in the construction of schools. Frugality is a public, as well as a private, virtue. It has even more place in the spending of public funds than in private spending.

Administrators and teachers can be sold on frugality if the fact is stressed that taxpayers are more interested in adequate pay for educators when convinced that they are ' not favoring unnecessarily costly buildings.

American public school control, including design and cost of buildings, is and should remain in the hands of local ., district boards. but:

The State Taxing Authority. should put square foot cost limits on districts in financial distress so that a frugal dis. trict, which holds its school building costs down, be not required to contribute to lavish or-ostentatious buildings in a district which does not have taxing power to pay its own way.

Fire hazard is mitigated by modern design of schools. With all classrooms on grade with exits direct to the outdoors, costly fireproof construction is unnecessary for safety of pupils.

The Field Act requires construction which is good and sUffi cient protection against earthqupke hazard,.

Maintenance savings on costly construction as compared to frame construction are largely mythical.

Fire-insurance savings on costly construction are not sufficient to fvarrant the heavier costs.

Optimum life of school buildings, in Southern California at least, is about forty years due to: shifts in land use, i.e., change of an area to industrial or commercial usb; the aging of residents in an area (children grow up and move away from thelr childhood neighborhoods); and the changing ideas of teachers about design of schools and methods of instruCtion.

Frame schools that antedate the Field Act have housed generations of pupils and are in use all over the State. Frame construction is easier to alter as changes are desired and easier to clear away when the school hogse must give way to new land use.

Ten dollars per square foot, and even considerably less money, is providing good and satisfactory schools in California, including gymnasiums and auditoriums, and is providing such structural details as ceramic tile floors and wainscots in washrooms. acoustical tile overhead in classrooms and offices, insulation against sun heat through roofs, a sink with drinking fountain in every classroom, ample cupboards and shelving, and so on.

The State Division of Architecture sometimes exceeds in its demands the provisions of the Field Act and the Uniform Building Code, as in requiring "select structural" and "number one" grademarked lumber where "num er two common and better" is sufficient, allowable and commonly used in other structures of all sorts.

Inspection during construction of California schools is made a double cost by the law requiring a local board to provide a qualified inspector for each building project; and the custom of allowing 2/o of. the total building cost to the architect for inspection.

It would seem that (if the law is to remain) fu ot l/o would suffice for the architect to supervise inspection and certify to satisfactory completion of stages of construction.

As an alternative, it would seem proper to rescind the law requiring the hiring of an inspector and allow the architect 2/o for the whole task of inspection for which he is held responsible anyway.

On a $300,000 project the architect's fee for inspection at 2/o is $6,000. The extra inspection costs, on average, $500 per month; usual time required on a project-8 months. The extra cost in such case is $4,000.

Remember. the State Division of Architecture sends its inspector at intervals to 'make sure the architect and the Board's inspector are doing their jobs properly !

The structural engineer who works on a set of low-cost school plans will do well to himself personally take the plans to Sacramento for the Division of Architecture's approval. If he is not there to explain his figures and insist on being shown where his figures and specifications are'insufficient, the Division often requires excessive quantities and qualities of materials.

The State Bureau of School House Planning is an advisory body, not a controlling one. Many educators and trustees seem to think they must do what the Bureau recommends. Some, interested in holding costs in check, think the Bureau's recommendations are often excessive and unduly expensive.

A school board interested in economical construction will do well to charge one competent administrative officer with responsibility to hold the wants of teachers and architect within the prearranged dollar framework. He should have authoritv to choose between wants and between materials to be sftcified. Of 'course the plans and specifications are still subject to final board approval.

Final responsibility to keep educational wants and specifications within the cost framework must be the architect's. Sorne districts write into their contracts with architects a requirement that the architect produce a design and specifications which will secure a bid within the dollar framework forthe building. Further, such contracts stipulate that the architect will, if the first plans fail to win such a bid, re-draw and re-specify them without additional cost to the district until such a plan is developed.

Finally, it is important that all elements of design, ordinarily called architecture, be coordinated with the necessary struitural engineering. This seems generally to be best a6complished by an architect who is also a structural engineer or by a fiqm in which.the structural engineer is a member'of the staff.

Unique Storoge Guqrqntee on Weldwood L-lR Sheorhing

United States Plywood'Corporation has added a unique storage guarantee to its life-of-the-building guarantee on Weldwood L-1R Mold-Resistant Plyscord Sheathing. The new guarantee is stated in a numbered and dated certificate to accompany each shiprrtent, specifying that any panels which do not comply will be replaced without charge.

The certificate guarantees against delamination as follows:

1. Outdoor storage under tarpaulin for a period of one year, if off the ground. 2. Outdoor storage without protection for six months, if off the ground. 3. In contatt with the ground, for a period of three months. 4. Indoor use, not in contact with the ground, for the life of any building in which it is used.

U. S. Plywood officials said the new guarantee is made possible by the development of L-lR resin glue, which has proved remarkably resistant to mold-a major cause of delamination. The decision to issue the guarantee was made after extensive field testing and performance experience.

For lhe linesl in REDWO|'D

Particular buyers in every 6eld seek the best, As trademarks take on lustre, they serve as guideposts to quality. Thus NOYO, trademark of Union Lumber C,omgann has come to sand for REDI7OOD AT ITS BEST.

. Certified l[.11.

. VG & IG Stock

. All Potlerns o Mouldings

Rodwood's most desirable qualities ful6"ll your expecations.

TTIXED CAR

S HI PilE NTS

Carefirlly assembled cars mean &mage-&ec ualoadiog-helpkeep true-"once a Noyo Dealor-alwaye."

Sqn Froncisco

Los Angeles Pork Ridge, lll.