University of Idaho students propose entry, lunch‑area and accessibility upgrades for Moscow Middle School; architects present three options for Russell site

A team of University of Idaho design‑build students presented preliminary concepts Feb. 26 to the Moscow School District Board of Trustees for work at Moscow Middle School and for a pre‑design study of Russell Elementary.

Scott Lawrence, who leads the outreach studio in the University of Idaho architecture program, described on‑site fieldwork his students performed at the middle school, including surveys, measuring, bus‑transfer observations and student questionnaires. The students’ concepts aim to increase the school’s public presence at the primary entry, create covered and accessible drop‑off areas, improve outdoor lunch seating and supervision, and provide sheltered outdoor classrooms for flexible instruction. Renderings shown at the meeting included a strengthened covered entry with signage, covered queuing for visitors to wait out weather while being buzzed in, and a reworked lunch plaza with distinct seating arrangements and sheltered play or learning areas.

Lawrence said the studio builds and implements projects where possible; he described past work such as an outdoor classroom built for McDonald Elementary and a community memorial project. Sean, the superintendent, told the board he had offered an initial $20,000 commitment to help advance the project and that he hoped to identify additional district or federal funds to increase that amount toward the $30,000 range discussed informally with the architect team. Lawrence and his students said their studio typically designs during the academic semester and, when schedule permits, builds in early summer; they also described outreach activities with K‑12 students to involve schoolchildren in design activities.

On Russell Elementary, the district’s contracted architectural team presented a pre‑design assessment and three high‑level options: (1) renovate and add to the existing historic building (including a proposed ~12,000‑square‑foot addition for a gym/cafeteria and elevator to address ADA access); (2) demolish and construct a new building on the existing site (new construction option); or (3) adaptively reuse the existing structure for non‑school uses or partial district office/compact housing combination while developing a new school solution elsewhere. The architects reported that the building’s brick veneer and much of the timber structure are in good condition for a building of its age, but that asbestos, old glazing and outdated mechanical systems would require full‑system upgrades under a renovation. The team emphasized the need for a seismic study and said interior systems replacement, asbestos abatement and ADA upgrades would be major cost drivers.

Consultants said an on‑site addition could reduce accessibility and site circulation problems by shifting bus and parent drop‑off to the rear of the school and placing parking and visitor access at the front, and they said that an appropriately scaled addition could increase Russell’s functional capacity to roughly 300 students depending on program choices. The architects cautioned that cost estimates, soils and civil engineering work remain necessary to validate feasibility and that all options require detailed follow‑up analysis.

The board and staff discussed next steps, including the architects’ delivery of a fuller building assessment with estimated cost ranges. Trustees asked about ADA access to a proposed repurposed gym (to be worked out with a ramp or regraded entry), the relative cost of single‑ versus two‑story elementary designs, and utility and site grading constraints for additions. Consultants noted the final costs depend on market conditions and the degree of interior demolition and systems replacement required.

Why it matters: The study and design work will inform long‑range facilities planning and a possible strategy for addressing elementary capacity and middle‑school site improvements. The student‑led design‑build model also offers low‑cost professional labor and educational community partnerships, while the Russell study lays out options with different cost, timeline and heritage‑preservation tradeoffs.

Next steps: The architects will deliver a detailed building assessment with cost ranges. The district will continue facilities planning conversations, refine budgets and examine funding sources before making any commitment to major capital work.