Well - I am no expert but ?historically and architecturally out of context" seems to be a little nitpicky. Is the issue how they look? Because they look pretty similar to my eye. Or is it a materials concern - fiberglass vs wood? I'd think safety and energy concerns would outweigh historical accuracy. No?

mayor joe, i dont know the last time you used those doors, but they are dinosaurs. They are heavy, and will gladly bite your fingers off.

Get over it.
The State is in a budget crisis and therefore so will our schools. Get the cheapest and most ineffective. If Joe or Barbara don't like them, then they can run a fun raiser to replace them. But I'll be damn'd if I'm going to pay higher school taxes for pretty doors.

Sorry...corection to my statement above. I meant efficient not ineffective....sorry

I don't think it is nitpicky. The new doors are terrible - they are the wrong scale and make the school look like a shabby graffiti magnet. The building looks sad enough without its pediment and with its poor replacement windows. Safety and energy efficiency are important, but there is no reason why the old glass couldn't have been switched out for tempered insulated panes. With new hardware and weatherstripping, the old doors could have lasted a very long time, and we would have been able to save some original fabric. It might even have been cheaper -- it just takes a little care. I urge the school to have the old doors refurbished and returned to their original position. At the very least install new wood doors that match the old layout.

You should be thanking Mayor Gross for being concerned about historical details in the village. Once they're gone, they're gone forever.
Kids have been opening those doors for almost 90 years and now they're too heavy?

those doors are horrible! How many children have been injured from the old doors? I'm outraged that they would spend our tax money on a squanderous project!!!!! Something has got to give! Too much control one group of people have over the whole community and that goes for the federal and state gov with the mandates.

I agree with jeff bring the doors back!

The bottom row of panes could be constructed of thermopane safetyglass, to address the safety concerns related to the push-bar. That should have been the logical economical solution. The remaining panes could easily be upgraded to thermopane glass for energy efficiency, as Jeff Small has noted, with interlocking
weatherstripping made of brass or copper on the sides of the doors to minimize drafts. This type of weatherizing system has been around for decades and works exceedingly well. I'm afraid that some company has sold the school district a bill of goods, and they bought it, without regard for the quality and beauty of the existing doors. These doors have not outgrown their usefulness, and they are by far, more aesthetically pleasing and architecturally appropriate. Please don't gild this lily!

"Graffiti magnet" - "Horrible" - well I only have the photos to go by since I've not seen them in person, but from the photo I wouldn't use these descriptions. That said - if it would have been more economical to simply replace the the glass and weather stripping in the existing doors then I'd have to agree that this would have been the preferable path to take. I would think safety glass would have been required in ALL the glass not just the bottom row - but again, I am no expert. I just think for most folks - the aesthetics aren't THAT horrible, although I can certainly see desiring to remain as historically accurate as our economy will allow.

There should be a strong consideration for the historical structure of the building. Fix the doors, keep them out of the landfill.

What faster way is there to turn a stately building into an eyesore than carelessness and/or penny-pinching on windows and doors?

I must say I to at first looked at the new doors kind of funny. But then I said to myself there are much bigger concerns in life at the moment than a set of doors and how they appear on a building.I am sure that the decision to replace the doors was well intentioned. I cannot believe that people are spending as much time blogging about the doors as you all are.You may be more effective relaying your concerns directly to the school board at a meeting rather than on this web site and if you continue to disagree with their decisions you might decide to run for election to the school board. My father graduated from high school in that building, I went to elementary school in that building and my sons have gone to school in that building.The type of entry doors to that building do not affect any of my memories of going to school there or any of the historical value I place on it with regards to my family.

I agree with Mr. Trainor that there are bigger fish to fry than the school doors right now. But then why replace them at all? Replacement obviously costs far more than leaving them alone, or replacing that "dangerous" glass with polycarbonate or the like. And the problem of degrading the appearance of the school for, oh, a generation or so, might be averted.

But where I really disagree is with the overall message that interested citizens somehow "shouldn't butt in" on such issues here and should be quiet except at school board meetings or unless running for a school board seat. It is one of the blessings of this age that people can react quickly and publicly to things like this, and that those making decisions can, when circumstances warrant, reconsider them. Otherwise, we are consigned -- quite unnecessarily, I think -- to suffering along, in many cases for a very long time, because such matters ought not be raised in a public forum.

That makes no sense to me. My view is that, in this day and age, the school board -- and all other branches of government -- should be paying attention to public forums. (Indeed, if an issue such as this one had been out here at the planning phase, the input could have been beneficial.) But ultimately, if officeholders are unresponsive to the concerns of the public, then it will be time for folks to consider running for those seats at the next opportunity.

That's the way of the world in 2009.

I agree.
With time restraints with a family its not always possible for one to pursue and make right so here we are hoping that voices will be heard directly or indirectly.

I agree that the new door style is institutional and boring. How are the little children supposed to peer out of windows the size of portholes and way over the heads of most of the children? We already have to suffer the sight of all the shades pulled down after hours making it look like a prison, because of some ridiculous 'safety' rule. And if you think that the admin is going to be reasonable and listen to community opinion, remember that this is the admin that wouldn't broadcast the President's message because THEY WERE AFRAID OF CONTROVERSY. Misplaced fear, as it turns out that most people agree that hard work, integrity and determination are good qualities. But I digress. Bottom line is that the school belongs to the community and the board is entrusted with its stewardship. It has a responsibility to the community to pay attention. We are not talking about the trailers up at Willow or Lee Road, this is an historic building. Look at the auditorium of CoH and then go sit in the high school auditorium, then tell me which one has more class. It is worth saving.

I hesitate to get off the topic of the doors here, but I can't let the comment about the president's speech go by without asking Ms. Benson what evidence she has that avoiding controversy was the administration's reason for not showing the speech? That's certainly not what Mr. Rehm's letter to parents said. Are you implying that he was lying?
In any case, if the administration received lots of complaints prior to the speech and thus didn't show it, wouldn't that mean that the administration DID in fact listen to community opinion, which is the opposite of what Ms. Benson claims?
Back to the doors...are we saying that the administration has to consult the public every time that building and grounds wants to fix something in one the buildings? Just in the COH building? How would that work? Would we all have to vote on it? Should the administration set up some kind of historic preservation committee?

I think it's a question of cultural sensitivity as well as pragmatism. Does the school board need to consult the public as Carlotta has posed? No. They are elected representatives of our community, and ideally should reflect the sensibilities of the residents they serve. I think the backlash displayed here indicates that they have acted outside of that sensibility. As far as setting up some kind of historic preservation committee, the School Board needs to realize that the two buildings they operate within the village are, most definitely, historic. COH Elementary (the former Cornwall High School), and the Mattheisson building (former village library turned administration bldg.) are architectural gems in the heart of this village. These structures simply cannot be lumped into the same category as the Lee Rd. School, the Middle School (former High School), or the current High School. They are woven in to the historic fabric of the village and need to be treated with respect. When it comes to maintenance in the case of these two buildings, restoration needs to be given equal or greater consideration to replacement, when necessary work needs to be done. I very much doubt that there was any such forethought given in this poor decision.

#1 the doors are much safer for the children and adults also
#2 the doors will save heat loss during the winter months
#3 Tim Rehm has done an exceptional job running our schools, why nitpick every decision he makes?
#4 This will save money over time
#5 Why doesn't the village dig out the snow where the parents exit and enter from the MUNICIPAL lot to protect our children and parents from having to hoof it over each time it snows. It creates a dangerous situation. Lots of people are put in a dangerous situation. I have brought this up to the mayor and he told me the school has a larger budget let them do it. I reminded him it's a village lot and not a school lot. Why don't we think safety first and spend 5 minutes tops and shovel that pass so it will be safe when the children are dropped off via the municipal lot. Its only appx 4 ' long. Anyone who has trudged across it knows the danger it presents. Pat Welch

Nitpicking? Every decision?

If Sup't Rehm makes that few decisions, we're obviously paying WAY too much for his services. But, of course, that points up the absurdity of the comment.

Where a decision will impact the appearance of a building for a long time to come, especially one so historic and visible, the public has every right to expect input on that issue to be sought and considered.

That quite obviously wasn't done in this instance -- and the administration shouldn't be surprised that the change hasn't been welcomed.

>and the administration shouldn't be surprised that the change hasn't been welcomed<

Was there a referendum done that that I wasn't aware of? Seems to me that the majority like the doors just fine. I believe the people who use the doors every day welcome the new doors. Please clear up this referendum where > the administration shouldn't be surprised that the change hasn't been welcomed.<

Ironic, isn't it, that the very person who asserted -- without any support whatsoever -- that "every decision" the Sup't makes is "nitpicked," now objects to a qualitative evaluation of the public response to the new doors?

To restate the very obvious: the doors wouldn't have been a news story if they had been done well. And, when three elected officials weigh in against and none for (as well as 9 against compared to 7 for in this thread), I stand by my assertion that the doors weren't "welcomed."

Besides, we all know that it's impossible to have a "referendum" on every decision a board-controlled organization makes. That's why we have elections. And those who stand behind such decisions will have to stand for reelection someday. That'll be when the "referendum" is held.

The doors are in, they look great, they're safe, almost everyone has eliminated their old sash windows replaced by safer windows and ones that save heat loss. Get with it it's the 21st century.

Mr. Chase, an internet poll is not an accurate measure of whether a population is for or against anything; the selection bias and the response bias are way too high. The number of comments for or against the doors in these comments tells us absolutely nothing about how the general population feels about the doors.

All I ever said, Ms. Shearson, was that the new doors hadn't been welcomed. Three elected officials and an architect have panned them. More people than not in this thread too. Still.

I didn't assert any measure of "statistical validity" to my statement, except in response to the absurd claim that merely stating that the doors hadn't been "welcomed" required a plebiscite of some sort.

It doesn't. The new doors are an eyesore. (And BTW, they still aren't in; only the first two pictured above.) They haven't been welcomed. To the contrary.

Peace. Out.

The doors are not welcomed Jon is correct. I heard many questions of "why" and "horrible" from parents when I wait to pick up my son. The only positive I heard was on here and from Pat.

and a positive from mike

Again, like an internet poll, a poll of selected parents standing around the school is not a valid representation of the entire COH population. If you are going to argue against the doors on the basis of the percentage of people who don't welcome them, then that percentage has to be determined in a statistically valid way. Simply stating your opinion that the doors aren't welcomed doesn't make it a fact. Until someone conducts a random poll of residents, we have no way of knowing whether or not the doors are welcomed.

That said, I'm not advocating polling the population as a practical way of addressing the maintenance of the village's historic buildings. A historic preservation committee of experts makes much more sense. After all, we live in a republic not a democracy.