Frequently Asked Questions: The Demolition of P.S. 199

1. What is being proposed by the DOE to replace P.S. 199?
  

The DOE, through the ECF (Education Construction Fund), has proposed a public/private partnership to lease the PS 199 property to a private developer for 99 years. More specifically, the plan is to build a 50+ story building in its place with a new school on the ground floors and in the basement with apartments above. An RFEI (Request for Expressions of Interest) was published to invite private developers to indicate interest on three properties (P.S. 199, P.S. 191, and the School of Cooperative Technical Education).

2. Is it true that the city will just develop 1 of the 3 projects?

No.   The RFEI states that all three school sites may be developed, “Prospective respondents are invited to bid on one, two, or all three sites… the number of sites transacted will be largely determined by the quality of the bids and the decision of ECF” (Pg. 4). A recent letter from the DOE also utilized the plural form throughout, suggesting that more than one site could be developed.

Update: 6/15/2013  The DOE has informed local leaders that the ECF is currently pursuing the development of CTE.

  

3. I heard that it is unlikely that they will redevelop P.S. 199. Is that true?

No.   P.S. 199 is highly sought after by real estate developers.  P.S. 199 is located in "the unofficial center of the Upper West Side" Pg. 5  and the build-able residential square footage is nearly twice as large as at P.s. 191. (561,719 vs. 267,672 zoned square feet) Pg. 7 

Update: 6/15/2013  The DOE has informed local leaders that the ECF is currently pursuing the development of CTE. 

4. Would the proposed school accommodate substantially more students?

No.  This is because more recently constructed schools feature larger entrances, hallways, and amenity spaces. Using recently constructed schools as a guide, at best the proposed rebuilt P.S. 199 would accommodate 705 students and at worst 591 vs. the current 827  students (see chart below):

Sizes of Newly Constructed Manhattan Schools (both ECF and SCA)
School	Area in Sq. Ft.	Capacity (Target Method*)	Sq. Ft. / Student
P.S. 59 Beekman International (k-5) and H.S. Art & Design (9-12)	385,000 sq. ft. shared	2070 (670** middle and 1400  H.S.)	186 sq. ft. / student
P.S. 342 Riverside Center (pk-8)	100,000  sq. ft.	600 students	167 sq. ft. / student
P.S. 397 Spruce St. (to become k-8)	100,000  sq. ft.	638 students	157 sq. ft. / student
M.S. 114 East Side (6-8)	80,000 sq. ft.	497  students	161  sq. ft. / student
P.S. 276 Battery Park (k-8)	125,000 sq. ft.	801 students	156 sq. ft. / student

• The rebuilt school (as proposed by the ECF in the RFEI) would be 105,000-110,000 total sq. ft.,
  with 87,700 - 92,700 sq. ft. above ground (Pg. 73). 
  
  
• New school construction in Manhattan ranges from about 156 – 187 sq. ft./ student.
  - At 156 sq. ft. / student, a 110,000 sq. ft. school would accommodate 705 students.
  - At 186 sq. ft. / student, a 110,000 sq. ft. school would accommodate 591 students.
  
  

• The P.S. 342 pk-8 Riverside Center School is planned at 100,000 sq. ft. with a capacity of 600 students.
  At this rate (167 students/sq. ft), the current P.S. 199 student population of 827 requires 138,100 sq. ft. The P.S. 199 1000+ student population in 5 years (near time of school's opening) requires 168,000  sq. ft.
   
• When the ECF rebuilt the tandem P.S. 59 / H.S. of Art and Design, the new facility actually had a smaller capacity (2070 students; 1400 H.S. and 670 Elementary*) than the schools did previously (2098 students, see pgs 5 & 6).  While P.S. 59 gained seats, the high school (which was under capacity) lost more seats than the elementary gained.

^{* This current FAQ version uses 2011-2012 Blue Book Target Method Capacity Numbers.  The first two (newest) facilities were not included in the Blue Book.}  
**The elementary capacity was decreased to 670 by the DOE from the original 730 number. 
  

5. Why does our school continue to have yearly kindergarten wait listing?  

 The P.S. 199 population has increased over 50% since 2000.  Despite recent attempts to slightly reduce the size of our school zone, the rate of population increase continues to rise:

• 3.5% average yearly increase (545 in 2000- to 827 in 2012)
    
• 4.7% average yearly increase (658 in 2007- to 827 in 2012)

At an average 4% rate of increase, the K-5 P.S. 199 population would be just over 1000 students in 5 years (near the time of the new school's opening).  In ten years, this number would about 1,224 students.

6. Could the proposed school accommodate a middle school?

No.   The 105,000-110,000 sq. ft.  school proposed is not large enough to address our current k-5 needs, much less a middle school.  The current plan would likely replicate the overcrowding crises at the past two ECF projects.

Current and Anticipated P.S. 199 Needs (given a 4% yearly population increase and the P.S. 342 Riverside Center ratio of 167 sq. ft. per child)
Grade Range	Current Needs	In 5 Years (near time of opening)	In 10 Years
K-5	827 students 138,100 sq. ft.	1,006 students 168,000 sq. ft.	1,224 students 204,400 sq. ft.
K-8	n/a	1,456 students 243,150 sq. ft.	1,771 students 295,750 sq. ft.

7. Should we wait to negotiate for a school large enough to accommodate a middle school?

No.  It is extremely unlikely that the DOE will build a school that is large enough to accommodate a middle school during the year that it opens (about 243,150 sq. ft. necessary).  As the above-ground square footage of the school rises, the allowable residential square footage for lease to developers lowers.   The zoned square footage at P.S. 199 is a fraction of the space available at the P.S. 59 / High School of Art and Design (385,000) - two adjacent schools were torn down.
 

For example, Community Board 7 (CB 7) sought a 150,000 sq. ft. space for the PK-8 P.S. /I.S. 342 Riverside Center School opening in 2016 in order to address District 3 overcrowding (see slide 4 of Extell's presentation to CB7). However, Extell, the developer, would only agree to move forward with a 100,000 sq. ft. school for 488 students.  The meeting notes of the public hearing with Extell can be read online (see pages 3 and 4). The SCA later improved the plans that the 100,000 sq. ft. could accommodate 600 students (2 classes per grade). 

As detailed in question 4 above, the ECF actually rebuilt the tandem P.S. 59 / H.S. of Art and Design with a smaller capacity than it previously had.

8. Are there viable alternatives to rebuilding P.S. 199?

 
Yes.  There are several alternatives that focus on school overcrowding and improving middle school access.
Rebuilding a facility within a luxury high rise can exasperate overcrowding within a school community. The ECF can focus on areas where its alternative model strengthens the community’s support of public education.

When the DOE focuses on acquiring new elementary or middle school facilities (rather than rebuilding old ones), every seat within the school involves a net gain for the community.  For example, upgrading one school community’s facility (such as a new middle school) can also help provide additional seats for a district’s elementary students (or vice versa).

The School Construction Authority (SCA) has successfully used multiple solutions to lessen overcrowding throughout Manhattan, including:

• constructing new facilities (P.S. 281to alleviate UES overcrowding, P.S./I.S. 276 in Battery Park)
    
• leasing space within former private/parochial schools (M.S. 260, P.S. 527, next home of P.S. 517 Teachers College Community School)
    
• leasing privately owned space (e.g. the current Beacon facility is leased; 80 WEA could be leased)
    
• purchasing  space within institutions (e.g. the New Beacon High School in a former library warehouse, the upcoming P.S. 340 within the Foundling Hospital, P.S. 267  in the MEETH annex)
    
• building schools within private developments on private land (upcoming P.S./I.S. 342 Riverside Center School, P.S. 397, Spruce Street School).  Examples of pending private developments within the local PS 199 zone include ACP owned land at the site of the old Lincoln Square Synagogue (200 Amsterdam Ave.) and at 166 Amsterdam Ave.
    

The DOE has the obligation and the ability to provide the new capital seats that our district 3 children deserve.  They have been building 87,300 new capital seats throughout the city - at the tune of 7.86 billion dollars over ten years. See the DOE’s last two capital plans : 2004-2009, and 2010-2014 ).  District 3 has simply been left behind – we have received less than 1% of these new capital seats.  This <1% is the Riverside Center school, which is to be built out at 2/3 the size that CB7 had demanded. 

Finally, The DOE could choose to make the upcoming P.S./I.S. 342 Riverside Center School a K-5 instead of a K-8.  This could alleviate district 3 K-5 overcrowding. 

 
  

9. Hasn’t this type of development been successful in the past?

The previous two developments, M.S. 114 and P.S. 59/High School for Art & Design have impressively designed new facilities and attractive retail (e.g. Whole Foods).  However, addressing overcrowding and middle school access are the two greatest challenges that our school community faces. 

• P.S. 59 scrapped its pre-k and had both K and 1st  grade wait-listing before its tower was even built
    
• The M.S. 114 site opened with overcrowding, and it had a crane accident that killed two workers. 
    
• Private developers for both projects have had financial difficulties (M.S. 114; P.S. 59)
    
• An Op-Ed article in Schoolbook (NYTimes/WNYC site) explains how the financial benefits of the ECF program have been overstated.

10. If this proposal goes forward, what will happen to the students?

The ECF has indicated that the earliest that any construction towards the new site could begin as early as September 2015. The DOE has not named a temporary site, nor guaranteed that the temporary space would have a playground. The DOE has also not stated in writing that the site will be located within the existing school zone.

Update 3/14/13:  In a letter from Kathleen Grimm, Deputy Chancellor to Scott Stringer dated April 25, 2013 she writes "If any of these projects leads to a redevelopment, the DOE is committed to keeping the impacted schools together and within their catchment zones."  (Ed. Note: We are unclear if "committed" is the same as a guarantee.)

The construction of the previous two ECF projects (MS 114 and P.S. 59/H.S. Art and Design) took 3 - 4 years after vacancy/demolition.  P.S. 59 spent 4 school years in a temporary facility that was 43% over capacity; they squeezed 520 kids in a building with a capacity of 363.  See pg. 6 of the 2011-2012 Blue Book.  Given this time frame, few families with children currently at PS 199 would actually benefit from the new school.

11. What would happen to the adjacent playground?

At this time, the city playground adjacent to P.S. 199 is not part of the proposed development site.  However, it is very likely that it will be closed during development for safety reasons.  In the early stages there would be blasting at the site and later a 50 story crane with the potential for falling debris. 

12. Is this project subject to community or parent body review?

No.  The parent body or larger community does not currently have the right to approve the proposal.  ECF as-of-right projects are exempt by law from any public review process (RFEI pg. 7).  The DOE has no requirement to seek either public comment or approval from any other elected body such as the City Council. 

While various promises have been stated verbally to allow public input, nothing has been put in writing about when or what form this would take.   The community should try to ensure in writing that the project is subject to ULURP, which entails some community review.  However, by the time projects get to URLUP they are often a “done deal”. 

Update 3/14/13:  In a letter from Kathleen Grimm, Deputy Chancellor to Scott Stringer dated April 25, 2013 she writes the changes that trigger ULURP will go through ULURP.  (Ed. Note: There is still no commitment that the entire project will be subject to ULURP.)
  

13. Isn’t it too early to get involved? 

No.  The DOE should have asked for your input before releasing the RFEI.  Instead, the RFEI was released for months before members of the public noticed. If we do not make our voices heard, our children will be displaced from their school – without a solution to our zone’s overcrowding crisis or middle school needs. 

    
  

14.  What can I do?!?

Keep visiting 199demolition.com for more information.

Sign the petition to get the DOE to stop the process and collaboratively examine our school’s needs before taking the next step.

Let your friends, neighbors, and public leaders know that we need a solution that simultaneously addresses P.S. 199 overcrowding and increases middle school access.

Contribute to the 199demolition.com Community Share Site.  The site also has info about how you can:

• Attend community meetings (e.g. Candidate forums, Community Board 7, and Community Ed Council 3)
   
• Write your local representatives (access the contact list or pdf version).
   
• Pass out or forward information by email / social media (e.g. this FAQ from this site)
   
• Join the Lincoln Square Community Coalition (1 rep from each 199 zoned building welcome).

You can download a pdf copy of this FAQ.