March 2010 Futures Meeting Notes

Attending the meeting were: Teri Buda, Karen Campbell, Leanne Clancy, Russ Endo (via Skype),Wilson Felter, Emily Fisher, Emily Harmar, Koof Kalkstein (via Skype), Ed Marshall, David Moos, Sharon Mullally, and Kathleen Walls, along with two architects from DIGSAU, Jamie Unkefer and Jeff goldstein.  Nita Hopkins was away with the 7th grade in Costa Rica. After an opening period of worship, three topics were covered: Master Planning, Development Planning and Upcoming Process.

Master Planning:   This discussion was led by Jamie Unkefer of DIGSAU, the architectural firm assisting us with master planning.  Jamie began by describing their work process over the past six weeks, covering a variety of community input and initial design ideas.  Over 200 people have provided input, primarily parents, students and staff, along with alumni and meeting members.  Information gathered included their relation to the school and access of it (vehicular, pedestrian, public transit, etc.), views on the current and desired physical state of the school and their ranking of school needs within the priorities already identified.  Words that were commonly used to describe the current campus included:  Friendly, disjointed, small, urban, intimate.  Words describing a desired future view of the school include those above as well as Green, cohesive, unified.  A large percentage of those providing input put highest priority on Gym/Performing arts (Multi Purpose facility) and green space.

The discussion then turned to some initial design ideas. Jamie pointed out that an effective master plan should have multiple time frames under consideration: 0-5 years, 5-20 (or 10) years and longer term.  This would allow us to envision the pace and potential for change.  He led the group in a discussion of issues and tradeoff's that should be considered while developing these frames into the future. These included:

• Choosing between ideal and sufficient in designing space and facilities
• What is the nature and role of a technology center?;
• How much community use of facilities are we contemplating?
• How much playing space do we need?;
• Who gets to park on campus?

Turning to initial planning ideas, the Futures Committee discussed possible configuration and remodeling changes to the lower school and Armat Street buildings, approaches to providing access and expanded capacity to the cafeteria and possible re-use of other facilities. The bulk of the discussion was around several different approaches to campus/space layout and positioning of a multi-purpose facility, both on the acquired property and within our current space. There was broad pleasure displayed at the range of possibilities that we will be able to consider.

These initial ideas will be continually refined and expanded. They will be presented in April to the school community through a sequence of meetings with Parents, staff and the Meeting. Subsequent plan versions will be reviewed at the on-going Master Planning subgroup meeting and at the next Futures Committee meeting in May.

Development Planning:  After dinner, Emily Harmar led the group in a discussion of how to develop resources for the plan, building on the discussion at the last Committee meeting. She described a number of recent and upcoming activities introducing the Futures activities to alumni and friends of the school who may be able to help us move forward. The group discussed approaches to fundraising, with a focus on identifying sources other than individuals such as foundations, corporations and even public sources. Initial estimates of a self-funding budget and timeline for fundraising were also reviewed. The group agreed that this will be a major undertaking with the expectation that we will need to enlist as close to 100% of the school community in support, both financial and volunteer to achieve our goals. The group also agreed that we will need to powerfully communicate Greene Street’s unique combination of educational quality, modest tuition and financial accessibility, inclusiveness and the ability to transform children's lives. Developed plans will be further reviewed in the May Futures Committee meeting.

Futures Process:  Prior to the close of the meeting, Koof and Russ briefly described the current status of the Committee's work and the coming steps. The Committee expects to complete its work as an ad-hoc group by the end of the current school year, with the master plan work transitioning to the school Committee's property committee and development work shifting to an ad-hoc board committee by the fall. We will be looking for members of the community to support both these areas, particularly playing a leading volunteer role in the development efforts which will continue for a number of years.