OPINION: Planned Inlet View Elementary replacement design falls short

As lifelong supporters of the Anchorage School District and Inlet View Elementary School, as well as active participants in the community, we cheered when ASD decided to address the longstanding concerns associated with this aging school. Recently, a number of us got together to discuss some vexing problems with the proposed replacement school to see if there were options that could address our concerns. Our group included designers, architects, landscape architects, and project managers, and Inlet View neighborhood residents, former students, and parents of students.

The existing school is a “midcentury modern” design by noted Anchorage architect Ed Crittenden, a building beloved by our community. When a new school design was proposed for Inlet View, we anticipated that it would reflect the same considerations for maximizing sunlight and orientation to the community as its predecessor.

As the new design has evolved, it became apparent that many of the school district’s own design guidelines for siting and orientation were ignored, key among them the provisions for solar design and community orientation. These guidelines include ASD’s Elementary School Educational Specifications, and Northern Building Design, a compendium of treatises covering design for Alaska’s unique climatic conditions. If it had adhered to the guidelines, most of the following concerns would have been addressed.

Why is the proposed replacement building’s front entrance and half of the classrooms oriented to the northeast, a direction that would not have any direct sunlight throughout the entire day? Why does the entry not face the neighborhood it serves as does the existing school? Why are the preschool and kindergarten classrooms and their playground not on the sunny side of the building? Why are students who walk and bicycle to school directed to an entrance that is not visible from the administrative offices?

Why are the service, loading, and waste recycling areas given the best solar orientation, while the program spaces, with the exception of half of the classrooms, do not get any direct sunlight? Why did the design not anticipate cold air flowing down from L Street, creating a cold trap at the main entrance? Why isn’t the building’s entry plaza oriented to take advantage of the afternoon sun in the spring and fall, traditional times that parents and children gather for after-school and community activities?

It is not too late to address these design concerns. If the building were mirrored on a north-south axis and rotated 45 degrees counterclockwise, all of the above issues would be resolved. The entrance then would face the afternoon sun and the community. More classrooms would have direct sunlight. The bus drop-off/parking loops would be reversed, resolving access and safety concerns. The benefits of these relatively simple design changes would be enormous.

The Inlet View replacement project costs an estimated $50 million. This large community investment should result in a well-designed public facility. ASD has an obligation to taxpayers to address these design oversights when asking for voter support.

John N. Crittenden grew up in ASD schools. He practiced architecture in Anchorage for 35 years. Jim Renkert and his brothers attended Inlet View Elementary; his family has lived in the neighborhood for 75 years.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.