[xemoka]

This was very much my first thought as well, that the costs of these buildings are far higher than schools of the past. It's good to want nice things, but there is a tradeoff.

There is a new highschool being built in my community to replace an aging one. The time and cost overruns of the custom designed building, featuring a towering atrium/lobby and ascetically pleasing frontage, has pushed back the move-in date to midsemester/next year.

Part of me loves that these schools look so much nicer and contain an environment better than the ones I went to growing up---another part of me knows that we have _many_ schools that need replacing of the same age as this new one's predecessor, and hardly a budget capable of doing so if they all are to be completed similarly.

Our drive and desire for "nicer" things (or at least things that dress up well), when we can barely fund the necessities, seems to be a hard dichotomy to deal with. How do we accomplish both?

[rachofsunshine]

This feels like a very important question: why the hell don't we seem to be able to do this efficiently, despite our vast resources and all the advances we've made in engineering, materials science, and automation in recent decades?

As much as the leftie in me wants to say we're not funding it, we are. Per-student, inflation-adjusted funding for education has gone up a full 50% in my lifetime [1], to more than $18k per student-year. $18k is a lot - for a classroom of 30 students, that's half a million dollars a year. We have the money, and indeed far more money than we once had, in a world where things are cheaper and easier. We should be able to do everything we did generations ago and then some. Sure, there are demands we make now that we didn't make then (like "maybe not with the asbestos", "kids with wheelchairs should be able to get places", and "maybe people with learning disabilities should get a chance"), but I have a hard time believing that those are adding >50% in real terms.

To me, the interesting question isn't the trade-offs, it's why we need to make them at all. It seems like we shouldn't.

The most appealing explanation to me is that there's a sort of low-grade hum of background corruption that is hard to detect but acting as a sort of friction on public-works projects. But that's hard enough to falsify that it's hard to be too confident in it, either.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/203118/expenditures-per-...

[cogman10]

The answer is simple, we've been ever expanding the number of roles for maintaining a school.

For example, pretty much every school now-a-days has 1 or multiple SROs assigned to their schools. Cops get paid quite well which means throwing an additional $250k+ into everyone's budget.

Every school now has an IT department which practically did not exist in the past. That costs money.

Then there is just general admin bloat that takes an excessive chunk of money out of schools (For example, PR and marketing for public schools... which is a bit ridiculous, but you district almost certainly is employing them).

There are also just general infrastructure bills coming due with construction prices being higher than ever. Schools built in the 70s are often in desperate need of repair/refurbishment.

Corruption may play a role, but I suspect the way it mostly manifests itself is a principle hiring their do-nothing family member in a role they aren't qualified to fill (so they double fill it).

[lubujackson]

Our society is like an old software project where we have hacked things on (bureaucratically) to address bugs one by one until we are left with an insane hydra system.

Build schools is expensive because of everything but building the school. Surveying the land. Getting approval for noise and traffic. Ecological impact studies. Permits for everything. Minor plan changes requiring re-approval of everything. Not to mention all the legal parameters and latent threats around every decision.

Yes, corruption flourishes in red tape. But it is not exactly the source of the problem.

[panzagl]

More money for education doesn't necessarily mean more money for buildings- they often have to be floated by bonds separate from the main budget.

Schools have more features than 75 years ago- better hvac, higher power requirements, better comms.

Government construction has to follow all the regulations, including a bunch specific to the government to fight corruption or waste.

[DowagerDave]

30 kids in a class... what, did you attend private school?

[voisin]

> Our drive and desire for "nicer" things (or at least things that dress up well), when we can barely fund the necessities, seems to be a hard dichotomy to deal with. How do we accomplish both?

Check out the book and concept “Pretty Good House”. You can have nice design without breaking the bank by making the right trade offs in the design process. I think this can be adapted to institutions. Probably ICF walls for high insulation values and lower operating costs, slanted roofs for lower maintenance, heat pumps, larger windows on certain facades for light and interior enjoyment without bringing in intense summer heat (also, overhangs on southern windows), modest entries, etc etc.

Another idea: I don’t understand why every school is designed by a different architect starting at a blank page (even within the same school board let alone the same state/province). Why don’t they have standard sets of optimized designs for different size institutions and figure out all the mechanical and electrical and structural once at the beginning and use the same design for 10-20 years with only small refinements as technology progresses? Lots of money is being wasted on consultants.