The cost of fulfilling school architect's desires | Letters
September 28, 2012 · 9:59 AM
After reviewing the Federal Way Mirror article that presents the findings prepared for public consumption by SRG Partnership Inc. spokesperson Jane Hendricks, I have to question the validity of her presentation.
Concerning the location of restrooms, a large number are not for general student use but in place for faculty and teacher staff use. Adequate natural light can be introduced by skylights and solar tube skylights to any and all room locations.
Many of the cited entry points are not necessarily principle public use entry points. Most serve as emergency egress, which are required by the ICBO Building Code, the National Fire Code. Perhaps this concern could be addressed by increasing the size of the points of egress so that they conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That would certainly be far less costly that tearing down a building to satisfy the desires of some architectural firm's wish to create their own monolithic structure.
As all school structures are continually being upgraded on a yearly basis, seismic upgrades occur usually every year until seismic upgrades are satisfied.
At a time when our state and city is in need of tax dollar revenue, it would be prudent to refrain from providing an architectural firm city and state revenue for the purpose of fulfilling their own self-servicing desires to gain profit from public coffers.
E. Romero, Federal Way