Is demolition the only way? Other options are available to save Mt. Pleasant High School | Opinion
Andrew Grover is a neighborhood resident, educator, and artist. Adriana Hazelton is advocacy manager at the Providence Preservation Society. Sam Bell is a state senator representing District 5. Ariana Packard is a Mount Pleasant High School teacher.
Walking along Academy Avenue in Providence toward Smith Street, one can admire classic, stately Providence homes and the notable Water Supply Building. But a gaze farther west over the La Salle Academy playing fields catches sight of one of the city’s true jewels: the Collegiate Gothic spires of Mount Pleasant High School.
As reported in The Providence Journal, the Rhode Island Department of Education and the Providence Public School District may demolish or seriously alter this landmark structure, and these proposals are deeply concerning. At very limited public engagement sessions, residents, teachers, and preservationists were staunchly against demolition, and even the idea of partial demolition was met with skepticism. These sentiments were largely unacknowledged by RIDE, and there is a strong foreboding we are coming perilously close to destroying a Providence landmark. As one long-term neighbor pleaded during public "engagement," Mount Pleasant was built during the Great Depression, and the people of the city put everything into it when they had nothing. The result was the architecturally stunning and distinct Collegiate Gothic structure that one can see from multiple points in the city. And as the neighbor also added, RIDE seems to want to replace it with something "that looks like a Staples."
Much of RIDE’s proposals are based on estimates that demolition is cheaper than renovation, paltry reasoning compared to what Depression-era Providencers built for their children. There is doubt, however, that the quoted costs are even accurate. As if Rhode Islanders need examples, costs of new construction are always underestimated and inevitably run over. To preservationists, the case of Mount Pleasant feels extremely similar to that of Nathan Bishop Middle School, another situation where the people of Providence were told it was cheaper to demolish a beautiful building. Only with outside review did the school department admit it had omitted a very expensive item before the bulldozer arrived: material removal. Renovated instead, a beautiful East Side landmark was restored to splendor. It would be unfortunate to have learned nothing from this and once again raze a beautiful landmark before realizing cost estimates were pulled out of thin air and did not pass muster under public scrutiny.
And for whom is this new academic vision being built? PPSD talks endlessly about 21st century learning principles and career tech tracks without specifying how many students are projected to take these courses, with what equipment, and why current classrooms are not adequate. Teachers are frustrated by this, and one can only surmise that this new school would not serve current Mount Pleasant students.
Environmental costs were also largely out of the conversation. How much carbon emission and waste would the demolition of this 300,000-square-feet footprint create? Providence has experienced dreadful flooding and poor air quality. Discounting how demolition would further impact climate change in Providence is grossly irresponsible. As was said by renowned architect Carl Elefante in 2007, “the greenest building is the one already built.”
There are several key questions RIDE needs to address. What public engagement are their proposals based on? How exactly does new, cheaper construction meet the needs of Mount Pleasant as seen by teachers and students? Do cost estimates include material removal and can there be an outside review of these estimates? Have carbon footprint estimates been factored in? How does the carbon cost of new construction vs. renovation square with the state’s 2030 net zero goals? Robust public discussions on these topics are required before wrecking balls show up at Mount Pleasant.
This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: There is a strong foreboding we are coming perilously close to destroying a Providence landmark.
