Ending Disciplinary Architecture in America's Public Schools

ENDING DISCIPLINARY

ARCHITECTURE

IN

AMERICA’S PUBLIC

SCHOOLS

MADELYN ALBRIGHT

ENDING DISCIPLINARY

ARCHITECTURE IN AMERICA’S

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MADELYN ALBRIGHT

Ending Disciplinary Architecture in America’s Public Schools

A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree Master of Design in Interior Studies in the Deprartment of

Interior Architecture | Adaptive Reuse of the Rhode Island School of

Design, Providence, Rhode Island

by

Madelyn Albright

2019

Approved by Master’s Examination Committee:

Jonathan Bell

Critic, Department of Interior Architecture, Primary Thesis Advisor

Liliane Wong

Department Head, Department of Interior Architecture, Secondary Thesis Advisor

Copyright © 2019 by Madelyn Albright

Markus Berger,

Associate Professor, Department of Interior Architecture, Thesis Chair

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may

not be reproduced or transmitted without the express

written permission of the publisher except for the use of

brief use of quotations in research or book reviews.

Ernesto Aparicio

Critic, Department of Graphic Design, Consultant, Graphic Design

Nick Heywood

Critic, Department of Interior Architecture, Adviser, Writing and

Thesis Book

Donald Sansoucy, P.E.

Critic, Department of Interior Architecture, Consultant, Structural

Engineering

Stephen Turner

Critic, Department of Interior Architecture, Consultant, Energy,

Systems and Sustainability

Rebecca Weingberg-Jones

Deputy Director, Community Engagement Partners, External Advisor

Bryant Weinberg-Jones

Chief Investment Officer, Boston Schools Fund, External Advisor

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

SECTION 1

I n t r o d u c t i o n

SECTION 2

D e s i g n Elements

SECTION 3

S i t e

SECTION 4

P r o g r a m m i n g

27

43

115

14 7

SECTION 5 161

D e s i g n

“IS IT SURPRISING THAT

THE CELLULAR PRISON,

WITH ITS REGULAR

CHRONOLOGIES, FORCED

LABOUR, ITS AUTHORITIES

OF SURVEILLANCE AND

REGISTRATION, ITS

EXPERTS IN NORMALITY,

WHO CONTINUE AND

MULTIPLY THE FUNCTIONS

OF THE JUDGE, SHOULD

HAVE BECOME THE

MODERN INSTRUMENT

OF PENALITY? IS IT

SURPRISING THAT

PRISONS RESEMBLE

FACTORIES, SCHOOLS,

BARRACKS, HOSPITALS,

WHICH ALL RESEMBLE

PRISONS?”

10

-MICHEL FOUCALT-

11

“ T H E W O R S T - C A S E

SCENARIO IS THAT IN

TEN YEARS FROM NOW

WE’RE STILL GRAUDATING

KIDS WHO ARE PERFECTLY

PREPARED FOR THE

1950’S.”

-DAVID WARLICK-

12

13

“ I n t h e U . S . m a n y o f t h e

s a m e p e o p l e w h o d e s i g n e d

p r i s o n s a l s o d e s i g n e d

s c h o o l s . W h a t c o m e s

t o m i n d w h e n y o u s e e

a l o n g h a l l o f c l o s e d

d o o r s , t h a t y o u c a n ’ t b e

i n w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n ,

a n d a b e l l t h a t t e l l s y o u

w h e n t o c o m e i n , w h e n t o

l e a v e , w h e n c l a s s s t a r t s ,

w h e n i t e n d s ? W h a t d o e s

t h a t l o o k l i k e t o y o u ? ”

- f r a n k l o c k e r -

14

15

“A r c h i t e c t u r e r e g u l a t e s

b e h a v i o r ; i t s c o n s t r a i n t s

a r e s i m u l t a n e o u s ; b u t i t s

c o n s t r a i n t s g e t e n f o r c e d

n o t t h r o u g h t h e w i l l o f

t h e s t a t e , o r t h r o u g h t h e

w i l l o f a c o m m u n i t y . I t s

c o n s t r a i n t s g e t e n f o r c e d

t h r o u g h t h e p h y s i c a l

p o w e r o f a c o n t e x t , o r

e n v i r o n m e n t . ”

- L a w r e n c e L e s s i g -

16

17

“ I n s t i t u t i o n s a r e

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s

c o n s t i t u t e d f o r t h e

a t t a i n m e n t o f p r e -

e s t a b l i s h e d g o a l s : t h e y

c a n n o t p e r m i t a n d

e n c o u r a g e a l l k i n d s

o f e x p e r i e n c e s b e c a u s e

t h e y c a n p e r m i t a n d

e n c o u r a g e o n l y t h o s e

e x p e r i e n c e s w h i c h s e r v e

t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f t h e i r

g o a l s . I n s t i t u t i o n s

l i m i t b o t h c o n t a c t s

a n d e d u c a t i o n . T h e y

i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e e d u c a t i o n

s o t h a t i t w i l l b e u s e f u l t o

t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s , f i r s t f o r

t h e i r c o n s o l i d a t i o n , t h e n

f o r t h e i r d e f e n s e . ”

18

- G i a n c a r l o D e C a r l o -

19

1

20

21

SCHOOL

PRISON

SCHOOL

PRISON

SCHOOL PRISON SCHOOL PRISON



22

23

24

25

ABSTRACT

The buildings children and teachers inhabit

directly affect what and how they learn.

And yet, physical structures of public

schools are often more reminiscent of a

prison than an environment cultivated

for learning. This supports the claim that

schools were intentionally constructed with

the tenants of disciplinary architecture at

the forefront; namely, how to maximize

efficiency and order through the use of

regimentation and authority.

Fortunately, innovative pedagogies have

come forward in recent decades that shift

away from the dominant, teacher-centered

hierarchy and towards a student-centered

model. However, school buildings

constructed over the last century prohibit

the implementation of these contemporary

learning theories. To accommodate modern

methods, the very architecture housing

these pedagogies must be reformed.

Adaptive reuse lies at the unique

intersection between the problem and

its solution. Construction costs of new

school builds are prohibitive, reaching

an astronomical average of $40M. Reurbanization

of cities and suburbanization

of rural areas has left little greenspace to

build large school campuses, forcing us to

reconsider how to use existing structures.

Through the optimistic act of adaptive

reuse, struggling communities, buildings,

and school districts can be redeemed and

regenerated. Adaptive reuse allows a total

abandonment of the prevailing archetype

of an academic school building by shifting

to a different building typology altogether.

exists. When schools resemble prisons,

students and learning suffer. As designers,

we have the moral obligation to abandon

the prevailing notion that discipline,

and its subsequent design principles,

reign supreme in public schools. Through

evidenced-based research, data, and

case studies, this thesis details forwardthinking

design criteria that will serve

as a functional toolkit of how to design

for a 21st century learning environment.

Utilizing this framework, the proposal puts

theory into practice by adapting a defunct

warehouse into a profoundly unique and

modernized school. Ultimately, it shows

how thoughtful school design can be a

catalyst for social change through one of

the most important equalizers: education.

The result is a liberating and dynamic

learning environment that reflects the

diversity of learners that make up the

21st century student body. Finally, this

thesis hopes to serve as a guidepost and

exemplar for designers, school leaders,

and educators to carry forward in their

own aspirational visions for the future of

education.

26

My own experiences in a failed public

education system, and a subsequent sixyear

career in education prior to graduate

school, demonstrated that pedagogy can

only be as good as the space wherein it

27

INTRO

School design reflects a community’s attitude

towards education. At present, common

school descriptors—dead-end corridors,

feedlot-style cafeterias, barred windows,

surveilled entries, and little access to nature

or the outdoors—often evoke a prison-like

image rather than an inspiring space for

learning. This then begs the question: what do

America’s public schools suggest about our

societal values?

Evidence suggests that America’s schools

were modeled after prisons by adopting

the foundations of disciplinary architecture;

a strategy used to enforce conformity

and constrain user behavior through the

built environment. In effect, the principles

underlying both prisons and schools are

designed for order, control, and maximum

efficiency. The application of disciplinary

architecture may not always be explicit, but

its effects have a deep and lasting impact on

its users.

As we gain understanding of how the built

environment shapes the experience of young

people, it becomes increasingly clear that

these underlying principles create a selffulfilling

and destructive framework. Rather

than nurture our youth through productive

and modern teaching methods, current

constructs serve to suppress students

and reinforce harmful societal norms. In

the following section, we first explore the

motivation behind this thesis: the social

implications and history of our deep-rooted

framework as a critical step in understanding

and implementing effective solutions to this

complex issue.

FUNDING INEQUITIES

Education inequality in the U.S is a serious

issue and the gap is growing ever wider;

reaching levels more disparate than before

the 1954 landmark Brown v. Board of

Education supreme court case that deemed

the segregation of schools unconstitutional.

Every day there are millions of students across

the United States that do not have access to a

high-quality education simply because of the

zip code in which they live. According to U.S.

Commission on Civil Rights:

“Each year, the U.S. spends over

$550 billion on public education.

While school districts spend an

average of $11,066 on each

student each year, that number

fluctuates drastically from

district to district. Public schools

in the U.S. are funded from a

combination of local, state, and

federal dollars. The revenue that

local governments provide for

public education is primarily

generated from local property

taxes, thus the funding provided

for public education is largely tied

to property values and the wealth

of a community. This contributes

to school funding inequities

between high-poverty and lowpoverty

districts.” 1

These fluctuations in funding create dramatic

differences in access to equal education.

Test scores and academic measurements

aside, one of the most apparent areas we

see this inequity is in the physical condition

of our school buildings. While our nation’s

school buildings as a whole are outdated,

the physical state of one’s school is largely

dependent on the amount of funding available

for their district. This means wealthier school

districts have the financial capacity to make

investments in their facilities that their lessaffluent

neighbors cannot. In fact, schools

located in high-wealth zip codes have more

than three times the capital investments than

schools in the lowest-wealth zip code areas. 2

For less affluent communities, this funding

gap manifests in a catch-22 in which districts

are forced to spend a larger portion of their

28

29

budgets on emergency repairs and upkeep

rather than make long-term investments and

restoration that in turn give their facilities

longevity. A 2015 study of California school

districts found:

“low-wealth districts spent

a higher proportion of their

total education spending on

the daily upkeep, operation,

and repair of their facilities

than high-wealth districts. But

low-wealth districts also spent

far less on capital investments

for building system renewals

such as roof or mechanical

system replacements and

building alterations such as

modernizing science labs.

Because it is more difficult for

low-wealth districts to borrow

the necessary capital to invest

in the long-term stability of

their facilities, these districts

end up making necessary and

emergency short-term repairs

using their operating budgets

— the same funds they need

to pay teachers, purchase

instructional equipment, and

pay for other day-to-day

educational necessities. As

such, low-wealth districts

often get trapped in a vicious

cycle; underspending on

routine and preventive

maintenance in the short term

leads to much higher building

costs in the long term.” 3

This vicious cycle is indicative of the

disproportionate impact of aging

infrastructure on low-income communities,

and necessarily limits the amount of capital

available for important educational resources

like up-to-date textbooks and technologies,

teacher salaries, extracurricular programming

or classroom supplies.

Low-income students, who are

disproportionately students of color, “are

often relegated to low-quality school facilities

that lack equitable access to teachers,

instructional materials, technology and

technology support, critical facilities, and

physical maintenance. These absences can

negatively impact a student’s health and

ability to be attentive and can exacerbate

existing inequities in student outcomes.” 4

Students are, in effect, punished for living

in a low-income area, and provided with

inadequate opportunities to improve their

quality of life in the future. This deleterious

effect fans out into the larger community.

School improvements are directly linked to

increased property values, micro economies

of neighborhood businesses, student

enrollment boosts, and higher teacher

retention rates just to name a few. By limiting

the ability of low-income schools to invest in

themselves, we also perpetuate the devalued

nature of their environment. Even though the

Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that everyone,

regardless of race, class or ethnicity, has the

right to an equal public education, it is clear

that pernicious inequalities continue to this

day. The established and persistent reality is

that this ruling by no means guaranteed that

the education students receive would be highquality

or equal.

BREAKING THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON

PIPELINE

Tangential to education inequality is the

school to prison pipeline. This phrase

refers to a mechanism wherein students are

taken from the public-school system and

channeled directly into the criminal justice

system. It is a product of zero-tolerance

policies that penalize students for behavioral

issues no matter how minor or major the

offense. Students who break established

rules are liable to be punished in the form

of suspension, expulsion or placed directly

in a juvenile detention center. But these

punishments are often not carried out equally

across socioeconomic and demographic

lines. Many of these students have learning

disabilities, histories of abuse, trauma or

neglect and would benefit from the very

educational services they are being denied.

These policies have also been shown to be

discriminatory and are carried out at a much

higher rate with low-income and minority

students than for their white, affluent peers.

In fact, a 2012 report from the Department

of Education found that black students are

suspended and expelled at a rate three times

greater than white students, while students

with disabilities are twice as likely to receive

an out-of-school suspension as their nondisabled

peers. 5 In effect, students facing

social and physical barriers are penalized for

factors outside of their control.

As students become accustomed to carceral

design, disciplinary architecture plays a

corollary role in this issue. When schools

resemble prisons, it is no wonder these

students feel as though it is their destiny. By

replacing hall monitors with police officers

who have little training working with children,

placing security cameras throughout the

buildings, and body scans at the entrance,

we send a message to students that they

are valued only for their submission and

compliance. How youth perceive themselves is

shaped by interactions with the world around

them, and when this manifests in police taking

regular disciplinary roles at school, it often

seeds distrust of authority and feelings of

powerlessness. The architecture of school

buildings doubly reinforces this paradigm by

creating a physical environment reminiscent

of a prison, built to enforce conformity and

constrain behavior, rather than a space

developed for learning. And academics are

taking note:

Fig 1.0 Police officer violently pulling a misbehaving

student from their desk at a high school in Columbia,

SC.

Fig 1.1 As of 2016, corporal punishment - the use of

physical force (usually paddling) on a student intended

to correct misbehavior- is still legal in 19 states.

30

31

“Just as schools are beginning

to resemble prisons, the youth

contained in these spaces

are in danger of fulfilling the

expectations that authorities

project onto them via negative

racial, gender, class, and

neighborhood stereotype. In

the name of justice, and often

in the name of protecting

our youth, America’s schools

and criminal justice systems

are veering toward a curious

alliance that I have called

the universal carceral

apparatus.” 6

—Carla Shedd, Assistant

Professor of Sociology &

African American Studies at

Columbia University—

THE NEED FOR 21ST CENTURY LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS

A common phrase used in reference to

school buildings is “cells and bells”,

meaning students stay within their cells (i.e.

classrooms) until the bell signals a move

to the next. Concurrently the term “factory

model” is often used in reference to school

buildings, as they treat students more like

factory workers on an assembly line than

as free-thinking individuals. Both of these

phrases exemplify a dehumanizing and

trivializing framework that enforces a view

of students as a monolith without individual

needs or capacities.

The rationale behind this type of model

comes to light when considering its historical

context. The majority of America’s public

schools were designed at the height of the

industrial revolution, in which assembly lines

and efficiency were at the core of American

ideals. The work of an industrial revolution

icon and engineer, Frederick Taylor, had an

enormous impact on many aspects of society,

including education. During industrialism,

Taylor condensed factory work into a series

of simple tasks to cut down on training time

and talent-pool gaps in the workforce. As

will be detailed further in this book, these

principles trickled down from labor systems

and into the school system, and the physical

manifestation remains prevalent to this day.

BRIEF HISTORY OF U.S. EDUCATION AND

DESIGN

The United States introduced compulsory

public education throughout the mid-to-late

1800s under the leadership of modernizers,

and in particular the Whig party, who argued

that “universal public education was the best

way to turn the nation’s unruly children into

disciplined, judicious republican citizens.” 7

Soon, all states had free elementary schools

and the U.S. population boasted one of the

highest literacy rates at the time. 8 Perhaps the

most well-known education reformer from this

era was Horace Mann. Inspired by Prussian

and European models of education, he formed

the Common School movement that provided

free schools paid for by local property taxes.

Initially started in Massachusetts and later

adopted by other states, these schools largely

taught the “the three R’s” (reading, (w)riting,

and a(r)ithmetic) and worked to “equalize

the conditions of mankind.” The common

school movement established a nonsectarian

schooling for white students, male and

female, regardless of their social class or

religion. Mann also introduced the notion of

separating students by age and classes. Prior

to this, schools were small operations that

took place in churches or homes and were

only available to wealthy, upper-class males.

With the rise of public education, many rural

communities adopted one room schoolhouses

in which one teacher was responsible for a

range of ages and capabilities. The buildings,

furnished primarily with long and simple

benches, were often constructed to be dual

purpose—serving both as a school and

community center. Often romanticized in

historical accounts, these schoolhouses made

great leaps in educating rural communities

who previously had no access to such means.

A recent resurgence in the concept of a one

room schoolhouse plays to the advantages in

having students of all ages and capabilities

mixed into one space.

As the U.S. population grew and industry

blossomed, the one room schoolhouse was

usurped by larger industrial-era buildings.

These buildings, marked by multistoried

construction and large individual classrooms

(50-60 students each), were designed for

maximum efficiency and one type of learning

only: direct instruction. Design favored

homogeneity—lit with large windows on

the students’ left-hand side to minimize

glare on textbooks and furnished with

rigid, right-handed (only) desks. Moving

from the fixed bench of prior decades to

individual but identical fixed rows of desks,

the furnishings of industrial-era urban

schools were only a slight upgrade from

the one-room schoolhouse. Most notably,

these industrial schools were subjected

to hyper-standardization: “As cities and

towns became more populous and greater

attention was focused on establishing the

proper infrastructure for a growing society,

school buildings became a new project for

societal reformers.” 9 To illustrate this point,

architecture and design critic, Alexandra

Lange states, “if you measure a classroom

in St. Louis or Chicago or New York from

1925, the proportions are probably going to

be within a foot of the same.” 10 The design

and standardization of these buildings were

created for an era in which the workforce

was dominated by factory-based labor. The

philosophy of education at the time was

that schools should provide a basic level

of training that was sufficient enough for

graduating students to work in a factory.

The lack of depth and variety to this line of

thinking is still largely in use to this day and

have rightfully earned the label “factory

model” schools.

From 1930-1945 there was a small movement

of modernist architects inspired by the

progressivism of thought leaders such as

John Dewey and Maria Montessori who

sought to push back on these ubiquitous

factory model schools. In a departure from

base-level vocational training, Dewey and

Montessori both questioned the role of

the teacher in the classroom and argued

that education and learning should be an

interactive, experience-based process where

students are allowed to directly partake in

their own curriculum. Many of these writings

and theories are still relevant today and

both have been credited as the foundation

for many contemporary pedagogical

theories. Alongside these thought leaders

were architects who came to support these

visionaries. Notable school buildings such as

Crow-Island and Cranbook Boys’ School by

Eliel Saarinen, Impington Village College by

Walter Gropius, Alavar Aalto’s Tehtaanmaki

School, and several schools design by

Richard Neutra in California were born from

this era. The architecture of these schools is

sometimes grouped as “the open air schools”

for their emphasis on natural light and views

to the outdoors.

After World War II, America welcomed home

millions of soldiers en masse. In pursuit of

the American dream, many young people

found themselves inhabiting large tracts

of land sprawling just beyond cities—the

suburbs. This shift away from dense urban

centers, in tandem with growing families,

created a unique and urgent challenge for

education. Between the years of 1958-

32

33

1968 the student population of school age

children rose by 2.3 million students, leaving

school districts scrambling to construct

schools for their ever-increasing enrollments.

The solution was to standardize school

construction and management in order to

make construction both fast and cheap. New

school buildings of this era were no longer

Colonial or reminiscent of Gothic or Georgian

architecture. Instead schools were one-story,

flat-roofed and enclosed with lighter and

simpler building materials such as aluminum

windows frames and concrete masonry

units. It was during this building boom that

the concept of the “finger-planned” school

gained popularity. In this arrangement,

corridors are spread out across the site

forming fingers off of which each classroom

is aligned. The need for rapid construction

methods have gone on to characterize a

building style that now accounts for 40% of

American public schools. 11

Despite spurts of innovation, less than 10%

of all schools in the United States were built

since 1965. Even relatively contemporary

school buildings are still being constructed

using the design principles of the 50s and

60s; rendering these buildings outdated from

the moment they open. In current times, we

are forced to acknowledge the increasingly

prevalent influence of technology on society,

leaving us with a new imperative for school

design and questioning the requirements of a

21st century learning environment. This thesis

offers an antidote to antiquated models,

presented on a sustainable platform that will

remain viable and relevant for decades to

come. While no one can reasonably predict

what schools will look like 50 years from now,

we must learn from the failures of past systems

to create new, flexible micro-environments

in order to accommodate multiple learning

models throughout a variety of landscapes.

21 ST CENTURY LEARNING

Traditional schools were designed in order

to supply a workforce for an industrious

economy, and the singular mechanism

by which to do this was the classroom.

Within this isolated room the teacher is the

authority figure who mechanically transfers

knowledge to students as they are seated

in rigid rows. Classrooms therefore operate

on the assumption that all students can

passively absorb information in the same

format at the same time. Learning became

unidirectional and prepared students via rote

memorization and menial tasks rather than

active learning and deep comprehension. This

model requires assimilation on the part of

the students, paying no mind to the fact that

the classroom should deliver a multitude of

learning modalities as diverse as the students

who occupy it. What has become clear in

recent decades is that this style of learning is

no longer equipping students with the support

needed to flourish in modern-day society.

Competencies needed for the 21st century

look vastly different than they did for

twentieth century students. Equipped with

well-backed research, modern pedagogical

theories veer away from the prevailing

teacher-centric model and toward studentcentered

learning models. In student-centered

learning, students are praised individuals who

are active in their own education. Instead

of passively taking in information, learning

is activated by encouraging students to be

in control of their own curiosities. Research

shows that “the student-centered model is

more effective for deep understanding (as

opposed to rote memorization) because

it connects the learner with a wider range

of experience than just listening.” 12 New

methods require an individualized learning

approach that can only be implemented by

removing the teacher from the grandstand.

Instead of designing for mono-functionality

and efficiency, a 21st century school must be

designed for learning.

THE STATE OF OUR NATION’S SCHOOL

FACILITIES

The United States has over $2 trillion of net

worth tied up in school facilities. This year,

our public schools will host 50.7 million

students, and yet more than half (53%) of

these public schools need to make investments

for repairs, renovations, and modernizations

to be considered in “good” condition. 13

In 1995 the U.S. Government Accounting

Office published School Facilities: Condition

of America’s Schools — the last truly

comprehensive federal review of our nation’s

school infrastructure. The report found that

half of all schools had problems linked to

indoor air quality and an estimated 15,000

schools were circulating air deemed unfit to

breathe. 14 Next to highways, K–12 public

school facilities are the nation’s largest public

building sector, accounting for about onequarter

of all state and local infrastructure

capital projects. Even with these investments

in place, estimates show that there remains

a deficit of $46B on school construction and

maintenance necessary to ensure a safe and

healthy school building. 15

Most schools across the U.S. are between

30-50 years old and are simply not outfitted

to provide modern standards of teaching.

Some would argue these outdated structures

prevent the application of modern pedagogy

altogether. How can we expect high

achieving students when they are placed in

substandard environments? Even in instances

where renovations or new school construction

takes place, it is often the re-creation of the

same school buildings we have seen for the

past 100 years. As a nation, we continue to

invest a vast amount of resources to maintain

outdated structures that do a poor job of

equipping our students with a 21st century

education.

THE CASE FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE

Despite the pervasive issues within the

realm of public education, at the center lies

a unique design solution called Adaptive

Reuse. Adaptive Reuse is the act of taking a

previously constructed building and through

the deployment of spatial interventions the

building is re-purposed for a new program

and user(s). When designing for a 21st

century learning environment, adaptive reuse

offers many benefits. Foremost is that it can

be a financially viable solution. When the

average cost of a new school build is over

$40 million dollars 17 , adaptive reuse can

counter the high financial burdens few school

districts can bear.

By identifying an underutilized site in which

designers see inherent value where others

previously have not, adapting an existing

building can be a cost-effective method for

creating modernized school facilities. More

and more school districts, in particular charter

schools who are largely responsible for

securing and funding their own facilities, are

turning to existing building stock in an attempt

to keep construction costs low. It should be

noted that the financial benefits of adaptive

reuse are very much site specific and are

driven by many factors.

“It’s important to understand both

the dynamics of obsolescence –

why buildings are empty – and the

relative suitability of revitalizing

and repurposing these buildings for

school communities. Like most things

in real estate, location is at least part

of both considerations. Supply and

demand play a part as well, as do

the condition, features, and size of

a property – the real costs and the

perception of value.” 16

34

35

For adaptive reuse to be effective, we must

take care to consider all of these various

factors in order to promote successful

outcomes.

In addition to the financial benefits of adaptive

reuse, it offers a solution to the increasing

difficulty of securing the greenspace necessary

for traditional public schools. With the reurbanization

of middle to upper class families

to city centers across the country, cities are

struggling to find space for their bourgeoning

student population. At the same time, the

gentrification of city centers has flipped

demographics and forced lower-income

populations out to the suburbs, resulting

in a much higher, and poorer, school age

population in the suburbs than decades prior.

The issue is then twofold: the greenspace

needed for a school building is either nonexistent,

or it comes at a premium price that

many cannot afford. When the suggested

lot size of a school is 1 acre per every 100

students, the lot sizes of a traditional school

can easily exceed 15+ acres. 18 The solution

as of late has been to secure cheap land far

removed from the city and build a school that

is isolated from neighborhood cores, thus

creating new issues of transportation and

commute costs. Many states, including Rhode

Island, recognizing the dilemma of schools

being detached from the community, have since

removed site minimum requirements and are

adopting a more flexible approach. States are

making it easier for communities to construct

schools on smaller sites that are accessible

by more than one mode of transportation. For

these reasons, cities must be more creative and

nimble with how they reuse existing structures

for academic buildings.

In addition to the fiscal and environmental

practicalities, Adaptive Reuse offers an

opportunity for a radical departure in school

design. In order to truly discontinue the

prevailing archetype, a complete abandonment

of the school building as we know it is

necessary. With the onset of pedagogical

advancements in combination with rising

scrutiny for the state of our schools, the climate

is ripe for educational innovation. Parent

and teacher expectations are broadening to

be more accepting of unconventional school

models, and adaptive reuse is challenging

the preconceived notions of what a school

building could or should look like. With new

efforts to “overcome the inherent constraints of

adaptation, converted commercial properties

can offer an effective path to explore new

typologies and transform outdated educational

specifications.” 19 For the purpose of this

thesis, the shift away from a traditional school

building to one that is industrial by nature

was intentional. The building itself can be

a learning tool for the community and an

example of how an existing structure can

abolish the preconceived notions of what and

how a school building should operate.

Lastly, adaptive reuse can provide a source

of optimism and regeneration for struggling

communities. Dilapidated or vacant lots

within neighborhoods present a physical

manifestation of negligence and, perhaps

surprisingly, play a direct role in allowing

and promoting unsafe behaviors and even

violence. One study found, however, there

was a 39% reduction in gun violence in and

around abandoned buildings that had been

remediated. 20 This effect may be even more

dramatic with respect to schools, which are

critical to the integrity of the social fabric

in the surrounding community. Schools are

often viewed as indispensable civic centers

for progress and enlightenment, whose

degradation trickles into the sentiment of the

community and negatively effects the city atlarge.

Conversely, when buildings are cared

for, it promotes the sentiment that educational

facilities are important and that the community

cares— resulting in teachers, parents, and

students all have higher self-worth and more

interpersonal investment. More specifically,

the renovation of a formerly vacant building

exudes upward momentum and aspirations for

a community. School renovation can also boost

the local economy by increasing property

values and welcoming local businesses and

organizations. In effect, schools provide critical

resources and facilities for the community that

would otherwise be unavailable.

OVERVIEW OF BOOK

The contents of this book are intended for

designers, educators, teachers, and thoughtleaders

alike. In the following pages a clear

foundation will be laid for why a new way

of thinking about the design of our learning

environments is imperative. Even with

surmounting evidence that proves as much,

rarely has design and theory been condensed

into one publication. This book hopes to bridge

the chasm that has existed between educators

and designers for too long and prove what is

possible for the future of schooling in America.

The ideas contained in this book are predicated

on research, documentation, and analysis

of my personal experience as well as the

experiences of my peers as educators. While

the fine details of the myriad issues surrounding

public education and policies are beyond the

scope of this work, this thesis seeks to provide

a broad concept of how to tackle designing for

a 21st century learning environment. This book

acts as a guidepost in showing that it takes no

more resources (if not less) to design a 21st

century student-centered learning environment

than it does to recreate the archaic school

models that we know are no longer working.

For the purposes of this book, I have chosen

not to elect a particular type of learning model

or apply a specific pedagogical theory to

this design. What readers will hopefully find

are design principles that can be applied

to all types of 21st century public schools.

Certainly, there are factors that would inhibit

or encourage the application of certain design

principles more than others. Rather than

applying with broad strokes, one can think of

the content as elements that can be deployed

on sliding scales; where some school models

may choose to deep dive into one element and

less so on others.

This book is organized into 5 sections, each of

which will make the case of why we should be

looking at the designs of schools as critically

as we look at education itself. The first section

outlines the need for a 21st century learning

environment by analyzing where we have

been as a nation. The second section proposes

ten design elements needed to provide a 21st

century, student-centered learning environment

with exemplary case studies of each. Section 3

introduces the thesis site and contextualizes its

location in Providence, Rhode Island. Section

4 details programming, function, and the user

group. Lastly, Section 5 combines all of the

theoretical framework and applies it to the site.

Though a site is specified, this serves only as a

vehicle for the practical presentation of design

principles developed in this thesis. Rather

than simply taking my final product at face

value, I hope that readers will use this site as a

reference to understand the fluid application of

multiple educational design principles into one

seamless whole.

As a final note: some of the content might

at times seem to be so radical as to not be

practical. This is to be expected, as with all

things unfamiliar comes skepticism. What I ask

of the readers is to consume this information

with an open-mind, to push your own thinking

much in the way this publication pushed my

own. My ultimate hope is that readers will

carry forward a new framework for how we

can dismantle disciplinary architecture to make

room for a 21st century learning environment.

36 37

2

38

39

40

41

DESIGN

ELEMENTS

Research and analysis in the exploration

of this topic revealed certain themes that

are necessary to design an effective,

modern learning environment. What was

illuminated through my research has been

further distilled and compiled into 10 design

elements that I will describe in the following

pages. These elements, while individually

providing standalone solutions, should be

considered in their entirety when applied to

future sites. These elements cannot perform

to their fullest without one another; they

are all intrinsically linked and are building

blocks for modern-day school design.

Nevertheless, certain types of schools

might choose to intentionally deploy these

design elements unequally. For instance,

a naturalist based school might choose to

hone in on connection with nature while a

personalized-learning focused school might

prefer to amplify adaptability in learning

zones.

In the coming section, I explain why

each of the elements in its current form

is outdated, and how I propose it should

be updated to reflect modern society.

Each element contains accompanying

diagrams that illustrate how they could

be applied to my specific site but could

theoretically act as a primer for any site.

The diagrammatic representations are by

no means an exhaustive, comprehensive

list of possibilities, but rather serve as a

guidepost for readers to being thinking

outside the box. Accompanying each design

element is a case study that stands as an

exemplar for that particular design element

and are helpful in understanding real-life

implications of each when done well.

42

43

CONNECTION TO NATURE

PASSIVE OBSERVATION

WELCOMING ENTRY

HEALTHY BUILDING

C U L T U R E

TEACHER AS FACILITATOR

COMMUNITY FOCUSED

HEALTHY BUILDING

A T M O S P H E R E

WELCOMING ENTRY

COMMUNITY FOCUSED

STUDENT

CENTERED

LEARNING

TEACHER AS FACILITATOR

PASSIVE OBSERVATION

ADAPTABILITY

CIRCULATION

LEARNING ZONES

PROPER FURNISHINGS

CIRCULATION

I O N

PROPER FURNISHINGS

LEARNING ZONES

ADAPTABILITY

I N T E R A C T

CONNECTION TO NATURE

44

45

TEACHER AS

FACILITATOR

CIRCULATION

LEARNING ZONES

PROPER FURNISHINGS

ADAPTABLE

HEALTHY BUILDING

CONNECTION TO

NATURE

WELCOMING ENTRY

PASSIVE OBSERVATION

COMMUNITY FOCUSED

46

47

INNOVATIVE

CIRCULATION

48

Hallways in schools are traditionally designed

to be long, wide, lightless, dead-ended, and

double-loaded with strings of classrooms on

either side. They were created to be purely

utilitarian for the transport of humans, and

aside from the sporadic transition times, they

remain lifeless for the majority of the day.

While corridors serve one purpose, they take

up on average 20-30% of a school’s square

footage. This is a huge amount of lost space

that can be recaptured for learning. When

considering an architectural response to 21st

century school design, a re-examination of

spatial allotment to circulation must be called

into question.

In architecture, circulation refers to the

way users move through the space. It is

the pathway people take in order to arrive

to certain destinations within or around a

building. However, the circulation in schools

is where you find some of the most apparent

forms of disciplinarian architecture. Aside

from it being imperceptible from that of a

prison corridor, the use of hallways reinforces

conformity, schedule, structure and the

maintenance of social order. A common sight

one might see in an elementary school is

students performing what is called “hugs and

bubbles.” This is what teachers call a hallway

transition in order to ensure students comply

with hallway etiquette. While one could argue

that the implementation of these transitions

is itself an issue, one should instead call

into question the design of the hallways

themselves.

If hallways are promoting wrongful behavior,

then perhaps the design is flawed. Both

physical and verbal bullying occurs in

transition spaces at an exorbitantly higher

rate than they do in any other portion of

school buildings. As reported by National

Center for Educational Statistics (NCES),

in the 2014–15 academic year, students

Figs 2.0 & 2.1 Images of standard school corridors

between the ages of 12 and 18 reported

nearly twice as many bullying incidents (42%)

in transitional areas between classes—where

they spend a fraction of their time—than

in other school areas like cafeterias (22%)

or playgrounds (19%) . Imagine if we

were to get rid of hallways altogether. The

management of these transitions would not

have to be one of “hugs and bubbles” or

bullying prevention, but could serve as lessobvious

and simple re-set rather than a mode

of simply getting from point A to point B.

To be certain, this book is not calling for

an end to circulation altogether. Without

a doubt there should still be clear and

practical connective tissue between

programs that could be applied in a variety

of ways. Perhaps there are expansions and

contractions in circulation paths that are

coordinated with its adjacent programming.

Or the lightless and dead-ends of the

traditional hallways are replaced with those

that are bright and endless. This proposal

hopes to spark questions about the ways in

which designers can be more innovative with

circulation in order to recapture this space for

learning and give students a more safe and

hospitable environment through which they

circulate.

49

APPLIED TO PLAN

circular

channels with open

circulation in the core

main path way with

circular nodes on ends

inside/outside undulation open meander

outside with multiple

connections from interior

branched

zigzag

TRADITIONAL

50

51

VERTICAL IMPLICATIONS

large central ramp

spiral

“The Pompidou”; outdoor

floating nodes

52

53

Project Name: Dura

Year: Proposed 2004

Size: 9,978ft 2

Architects: dRMM

Location: UK

CASE STUDY

“The ‘Dura’ prioritises space, daylight and views, offering

an enormous transparent volume in which a variety of

classroom types can be endlessly (re)configured. dRMM

and the consultant team developed this radical design for

the 21st century, with the deliberate intent of transforming

the imposed and deterministic nature of schools into

individualised places of learning, empowerment and

variety.” 21

This proposal excelled in bending what vertical circulation

could look like for a public school. The circuitous nature

of the paths have maximum visibility while also integrating

nodes that provide alternative learning zones and

informal gathering spaces. The result is a spatially grand

feeling with intimate and personal subspaces that are

endlessly adaptable. By placing the elevator so that the

glass partition faces inward, as well as placing bridges

that interlink all sides of the building, the architects, in

affect, created a looking glass so that all activities can be

shared by all.

Fig 2.2

Fig 2.3

Fig 2.4

+

Circulation

Diffused naturaling lighting

Radical proposal

Free-plan

Adaptability

_

Energy efficiency

Functionality of design

Acoustic consequences

Focus mostly on vertical circulation and

less so on horizontal movement

Fig 2.5

54

55

LEARNING ZONES

56

With circulation innovation, one should

simultaneously reconsider the architectural

element aligned alongside them -- the

classroom. The classroom remains as one

of the most defining features of a school

building, yet has been obsolete for decades.

Currently, the classroom is nothing more than

a remnant of the industrial revolution and is

one of the most perceptible indications that

the design of schools has failed children. The

‘cells’ to the “cells and bells” were designed

to streamline the transference of knowledge,

but the effect it has had on true learning

has been detrimental. The stiff and confined

nature of classrooms assumes that all students

learn the same thing, all at the same time—an

archaic and unproductive theory. Prominent

new pedagogical theories show the value

of personalized and student-centered

learning but its implementation is fettered

by the classroom; at least as we currently

know it to exist. It is time we break down the

metaphorical walls and think outside of the

box.

The classroom should be designed to

efficiently facilitate the student’s own

learning. Modern pedagogical theory

embraces the ideas that no two humans are

alike, and the individual aspect of learning

contradicts uniform teaching scenarios. As

students move throughout the school day,

designers should be ensuring teachers and

students have the agency to deliver curriculum

that caters to a variety of learning styles.

Traditional classroom orientations only satisfy

two of the roughly 30 identified program

modalities listed on page 148: lectures

and presentations. In essence, there are no

benefits or added learning modalities from

placing identical boxes next to each other.

Simple modifications to classroom structures

can show dramatic improvements. The simple

act of removing the static walls between

In traditional classrooms, student and teachers can only engage in a few learning modalities. The room is

arranged for presentations or lectures. Circulation is disconnected. Most furniture is permanent, or comes

with great effort in order to rearrange. The standalone entity of classrooms is not as nimble as needed for

contemporary learning.

two classrooms immediately unlocks 5+

learning modalities. Taking it one step further,

by getting rid of barriers altogether, this

configuration has the potential to touch on

all 20 modalities. This modest reconfiguration

can initiate multitudes of positive change

in the way students interact and engage

with space. In the 21st century learning

environment, variation is important, and

traditional classrooms do not provide that

opportunity.

In place of the traditional classroom, this

proposal adopts learning zones. A learning

zone is a clustered area that students and

teachers can choose depending on what is

appropriate for their respective activity. Some

of these zones can continue to be a space for

lecturing or presentation, but can also satisfy

students who need a quiet space, or when

there is a need for small-group discussions, or

perhaps messy project work. By strategically

placing learning zones within the same

footprints of a standard school layout, we can

provide a much richer and broader learning

landscape. Children’s learning abilities are

directly linked to the social and physical

learning situations they are in. By adopting

learning zones, we are actively fighting

against monotonous spaces and providing

differentiated programming that is as diverse

as the learners who are using them.

57

PROPER

FURNISHINGS

An overhaul of the classroom and circulation

cannot occur without proper furnishings.

Furniture, together with circulation and

learning zones can be the make-or-break

element of a successful school. Light and

flexible furniture can create a new floorplan

in a matter of minutes. It can shape the

circulation pathways or delineate learning

clusters resulting in spatial conditions that

are much less commandeering than what

we typically witness in classrooms. By

guaranteeing a standard of flexibility and

maneuverability, users have a sense of

autonomy over the space and can go on to

shape it into what they determine is best for

their situation.

While furniture supports the spatial design of

a school, there are myriad human factors to

consider as well. Students between the ages

of 5-18 will spend over 15,000 hours sitting

down at school. “It’s a childhood memory

trigger up there with the smell of crayons,

the feel of a school chair: bum-numbingly

hard, built for stacking not sitting, massproduction

not comfort, and bucket-shaped

to a rigorous ergonomic standard that

ensures it won’t fit a single child’s bottom

in the land. 22 ” The hard chairs, commonly

seen connected to the desks themselves (fig

2.6) are not only contributing to back pain

and issues in children, but they are hindering

their learning experience. For most of the

day students are confined to furnishings in

which their ergonomics are not considered.

Office and work environments have made

major advancements in furniture design

that allows for the most productivity from

their employees, but this type of innovation

has not taken serious hold in learning

environments. Even in the most expensive

and modern schools, we are still plagued

with poor furnishings. To truly design for

the 21st century learning environment,

this should be one of the most important

specifications detailed early on in the design

process. A consequence of current furnishings

is that we are encouraging too much sitting.

By having rooms that are crammed with

stationary furniture pieces, we are promoting

a culture of stagnation. We have overprogrammed

our classrooms so that they

are not supportive of movement or active

learning.

Aside from seating and desktops, there are

many other furnishings to consider. One

vast sub-category is storage. Students learn

best in uncluttered environments and the

placements and creative considerations

of storing items can support tidiness and

control over the space. According to Lorraine

Maxwell, an expert on environmental

psychology for children: “tidiness is important

for students not just because it helps create

restorative spaces, but also because a wellorganized

space allows students to have

more control over their environment and helps

build autonomy. 23 ” Here are a few things to

consider when designing for storage: longterm

vs. short-term, quickly accessible vs.

rarely accessed, teacher vs. student, secured

or open access, static or mobile, tall and

structural or low and practical. Additional

furnishings to consider are restroom access

and layouts, clear wayfinding elements,

technology placements, access to electrical

power, presentation elements (smart boards,

student work displays, white boards, etc),

and even small, but not insignificant elements

such as surface and material choices all play

a role.

A potential negative byproduct of having a

more flexible and open school building could

be turning students and teachers into nomads.

With flexibility comes the potential feeling the

user is in a constant state of flux. To combat

Fig 2.6 standard school desk and chair combination. The rigidity and lack of ergonomic considerations

create unfavorable learning conditions for students.

this, it is important to provide a consistent

space students and teachers can call their

own, this would give the users peace of mind

that they are welcome and this is indeed their

space. This could be in the form of cubbies,

a cloak room, or a built-in home base that

would be a permanent fixture in the floorplan

amidst the day to day changes.

In summary, furnishings should not only be

ergonomically suitable, but should also take

an active role in creating a stimulating and

flexible learning environment for its users.

58

59

Fig 2.7

Fig 2.9

Fig 2.8

60

Fig 2.10

61

Project Name: Telefonplan

Year: 2011

Size: 1,900m 2 / 20,451ft 2

Architects: Rosan Bosch Studios

Location: Stockholm, Sweden

CASE STUDY

Rosan Bosch has created a name for herself in

how she approaches school design truly through

the eyes of the children. Imaginative, fun and

playful are the first words to come to mind when

seeing these colorful landscapes that are mostly

created through the design and placement of

furniture. From curvilinear nooks where students

can nestle into a book, or a “cave” that acts

as a sound studio and cinema- these highly

customized schools are all about the details. The

architecture is in itself a translation of innovative

education. The interiors offer a differentiated

learning environment that is an intentional

departure from traditional classroom design and

instead focuses on individuality and diversity.

“Instead of classical divisions with chairs and

tables, a giant iceberg for example serves

as cinema, platform and room for relaxation,

and sets the frame for many different types

of learning. Moreover, flexible laboratories

make it possible to work hands-on with themes

and projects.” 24 The furnishings are not only

beautifully articulated to match the pedagogy

of the school, they are also practical and are

considerate of the ergonomics appropriate for

the age of the students the school aims to serve.

Fig 2.11

Fig 2.12

Fig 2.13 Fig 2.14

+

Excellent use of furnishings

Creative partitioning

Great use of color

Complete abandonment of classroom

_

Community engagement not apparent in

design

No connection to nature

Fig 2.15 Fig 2.16

62

63

ADAPTABILITY

In order for schools to provide for the diverse

spectrum of needs its occupants require, it is

essential for the building to be adaptable. This

is especially the case as “teaching and learning

continues to be a process of evolution. The

design of new school buildings needs to reflect

this, and provide facilities that can change

with the times,” 25 in order to implement both

long-term and short-term visions of the school.

In traditional public schools, their inability to

adapt is displayed in how nearly every room

is mono-functional. Students are escorted to

the music room, art room, gymnasium, or the

science lab in order to learn that one subject for

a dictated amount of time per week. By making

these spaces more integrated to serve more than

one purpose, we can more carefully consider

how we are curating the spatial experience of

students.

year master plan based on the conditions of

the existing site, designing spaces with flexible

walls and partitions that can adapt to future

programming requirements, or being cognizant

of the shapes and structures the buildings are

made of in order to make additions easier. A

common pitfall we see when schools do not

consider their long-term adaptability, is the

tacking on of unsightly trailers onto schools.

These surrogates for an already outdated

structure could be prevented through smart

and thorough planning. In marginally better

scenarios we find permanent additions onto the

existing building. However, these extensions are

often poorly considered, quickly executed, and

compromise other key design elements such as:

convoluted circulations, poor wayfinding, school

identity discontinuity, and inequalities plainly

built into the school.

Fig 2.17

Mobile classrooms, nicknamed “willis wagons” after the Chicago superintendent of the time, Benjamin Willis. Were

first introduced in the 1960’s as a response to overcrowded black schools. The city’s response was to construct aluminum

trailers in vacant lots and on the grounds of overcrowded black schools rather than allow children to enroll

at underutilized white schools that in many cases were only a few blocks away

64

A building that is adaptable can change minute

to minute as the needs of users evolve. This

adaptability aids in the delivery of personalized

content and provides conditions in which staff

and students can shape their own settings.

There is also a need for long-term adaptability

throughout the lifetime of a school building. A

building that is adaptable and nimble would be

able to respond to long-term changes such as:

fluctuations in enrollment, increased volume of

community use, or energy and systems updates

without the need for a large renovation. We are

witnessing in real-time the rapidity of changes

precipitated by the technological era of which

we live. For this reason, it is nearly impossible to

predict what learning in 2030, 2050 or beyond

will look like. Just as architects from the 20th

century did not anticipate the stark changes

that would overtake the learning world over

the proceeding century, designers now cannot

predict with certainty what changes are to come.

However, where designers could do better, is by

placing built-in stop gaps that allows a school

building to flex and conform to future learning

ideals. This could come in the form of a 50-

A building that is adaptable can satisfy the 21st

century requirements of asynchronous and multimodal

learning that can adhere to everyone’s

distinct learning styles for many years to come.

Fig 2.18

There are currently 180,000 portable classrooms in use across the U.S. in which 79% of them have reported use of

longer than two years. By careful masterplanning and adapability, this scenario could be avoided. 26

65

ADAPTABILITY APPLIED TO SITE

9am 2pm 7:30pm

Traditional school buildings have very limited adaptability and agility. As demonstrated above, the container of the

classroom is quite constrictive and limits multi-modal and asynchronous content delivery.

66

67

ADAPTABILITY APPLIED TO SITE

EXPANSION

Present 2030 2050

Long-term visions for schools are rarely considered and result in accessory units to be added onto the site

CONTRACTION

68

69

Project Name: Wish School

Year: 2016

Size: 12,550ft 2 / 1,166m 2

Architects: Grupo Garoa

Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil

Fig 2.19

CASE STUDY

“With a teaching proposal where the classroom

is a point of support for the student

and not its container, Wish School builds

its pedagogy through an overall view of the

individual. Physical, emotional, social, cultural,

corporeal, creative, intuitive, and spiritual

aspects are as important as the rational

intellect. Beyond the content of the disciplines,

understanding the child’s wishes and

abilities are used to reframe and firm the child

learning. We approached the floor plan as a

territory composed of contraction and expansion

zones, in which there are frontiers and

borders, but they are tenuous, allowing and

encouraging transgression, catalyzing imaginative

appropriation, understanding children

as an active subject and space transformers.

The hallways, as spaces whose only function

is the continuous movement of come and go,

do not exist. All environments are expansions

of formal classroom and propitious to the

assimilation of knowledge. Consequently, to

get from one point to another, it is possible to

choose different paths, different interactions,

choose what to find and what not.” 27

This modest Adaptive Reuse project is testament

to the fact that you don’t need a robust

amount of funding, or luxurious materials to

make an excellent public school for low-income

students. In this study, the move of the

corridor and the classroom away from mere

containers is not only beautifully articulated

but is practical and creates a lively dynamism

for its users. The evolving landscape

is created through non-orthogonal pivoting

partitions, of which both sides host storage or

displays for students and teachers. By pivoting

a single panel, the change of the spatial

qualities is profound but not confusing or

disorienting. The architects did a phenomenal

job at designing zones that are continuous

and at the same time distinct and unlimited

in its potential number of uses. The ability

to expand and contract allows for a wide

spectrum of learning modalities and activities.

There is a certain amount of skepticism when

proposing an abandonment of classroom. It is

something we are so familiar with, it is hard

to fathom what a school would be like without

this element. This case study is an exemplary

model of how to redefine classrooms so that

it is a pillar for the learning environment-- not

the end all be all.

Fig 2.23

Fig 2.20

Fig 2.21

Fig 2.22

+

_

Fig 2.24

No Classrooms

Is design scaleable?

Multi-modal

Sophisticated modes of

Fig 2.25

adaptability

Financially viable

Adaptive Reuse

70

71

COMMUNITY

FOCUSED

72

Students are not the only ones affected by a

bad learning environment. When schools are

dilapidated, poorly designed, or infrequently

maintained, they are seen negatively by the

community at-large. The negative effects of a

poor learning environment trickle down and

infiltrate the sentiments of residents and the

community that are central to the vitality of a

school. When communities thrive, schools thrive

and the reverse is also true. While we often

see community engagement stated as a core

value in school manifestos, rarely do we see this

principle integrated into the design of the school

from the outset. Instead, this aspect is rolled into

the school as an afterthought and the community

is met with rare access, barriers of entry, and

resources that are catered only to students.

Before beginning any type of school build, no

matter how big or small the intervention, the

community should be involved throughout the

design process. By acknowledging that each

community has their own wishes and necessities

creates a customized and nurturing learning

environment. This can happen through design

workshops or charrettes in which teachers,

students, and community members have a

platform to not only raise concerns, but also

feel empowered as they start to envision their

community transforming. Ignoring the community

in the design of a school is a pitfall that will

eventually eat away at the foundations of a

school.

One way a school can incorporate community

engagement is to design dedicated spaces

for the parental community of the students.

An abundance of research shows that one of

the most significant factors to student success

is parental involvement. When parents feel

welcome, they are more compelled to be

involved in the school community and thus

the education of their child. Taking it one step

further and incorporating programming for the

wider community can be an innovative tactic

for increasing economic development and the

Fig 2.26 example of of community design workshop utilizing simple materials and supplies that

constituents can utilize in order to create a vision for their neighborhood school.

overall quality of life for residents. A key

factor in successfully employing this vision

is by offering extended services. Extended

services provide a range of programs that

regularly take place in the building and are

accessible to residents beyond or within

the operating hours of the school. Common

examples include: adult night classes, sports

& leisure clubs, day care services, open

source computer labs, and family counseling.

By giving residents an opportunity to take

advantage of these resources, then the

sense of community pride for that building is

fortified. When considering that “the school

structure is usually the largest building in

the neighborhood, a landmark building,” 28

it is easy to see that “the people of the

neighborhood regard these schools as

important buildings. Any school upgrades

should reflect and enhance the school’s status

in the neighborhood.” 29

Expanding services to the wider community

also allows for more opportunities of

partnerships with other local organizations,

thus expanding the school’s network. For

instance, a partnership with a night school

for adults, local clubs, or public libraries

could be mutually beneficial for both parties.

The spectrum of community engagement is

wide and can subsume a number of roles in

the design. Ultimately, where the school falls

should be a conscious decision made by

school and community leaders. However, no

matter where one lies on the scale, a constant

fact remains. A school that is engaged with

the community enters a critical state of

symbiosis in which they are both nurturing

each other. Community engagement draws

on the involvement of the constituents to give

agency and voice towards raising the quality

standards for education, and vice versa,

ultimately driving positive waves of change.

73

COMMUNITY CONNECTION APPLIED

TO SITE

COMMUNITY

STUDENTS &

TEACHERS

In traditional schools the ability for the community to connect with the school

is limited, typically just to the front entry, and the remainder of the buiding is

inaccessible even in off-hours.

By designing with the community in mind, the relationship between the school

and community is broadened and interwoven instead of being sequestered from

each other.

74

75

Project Name: Marysville High

Year: 2010

Size: 195,919 ft 2

Architects: DLR Group

Location: Marysville, Washington

CASE STUDY

Marysville High was constructed after

community sentiment turned sour due

to corruption on part of the previous

administration. The district felt the only

viable path forward was to start over with a

clean slate. Under the leadership of a new

superintendent, this campus was envisioned

with the input of the community and its main

purpose was to heal the deep fractures

that had befallen them over the years. The

outcome is a dense and truly communityoriented

campus. Built in a growth of trees

that contains four different learning buildings

with a fifth commons building in the center.

The 4 learning buildings are flexible, threestory

structures where the team’s primary

focus was to design “universal learning

spaces” that are capable of adapting to

the changing specifics of the educational

programming and curriculum needs.

“The learning community concept, adopted

by the school district, was a driving factor in

the schematic design development. Wanting

to engage the community in the design of a

new school and invest them in its success,

they kicked off a 4-month planning process

of workshops, open houses, and focus groups

that involved architects, students, parents,

teachers, and board members. The eventual

design reflected the communal inception

and orientation of the school. While the

idea was to create a “learning community,

this ethos was not restricted to the students

and teachers within it. In fact, the first of the

five Guiding Principles for the Design of the

School describes how, through extensive

transparency and collaborative spaces, the

design blurs boundaries between teachers,

students, school and community.” 30

While the buildings were intended to blur the

lines between students and the community, it

continues even moreso outdoors. The beautiful

grounds are also open for public use all hours

of the day, further opening the invitation

of this truly being a school for and by the

community.

Fig 2.27

Fig 2.28

+

_

Designed by and for the

community

Small clusters of learning

communities instead of a large

concentration of students

Interconnectivity in the voids

between buildings

Even though the school is on

beautiful grounds, there is

little direct connection from

the school itself.

Higher education aesthetic;

still conotes an institutional

setting

Fig 2.29 Fig 2.30

76

77

CONNECTION TO

NATURE

When designing schools, there should be

careful attention paid to maximizing direct

access to nature for students. This should not

be confused with simply providing natural

lighting, rather it should focus more on how

students can engage with nature. Many

studies now show that nature enhances the

learning experiences of students and offers

healing and relaxing properties that indoor

spaces alone cannot provide. Direct access to

nature offers resources and curricula that are

not seen in the classroom and gives teachers

a unique opportunity to practice teaching

styles not utilized indoors. It provides

enriched and varied learning that may not

readily be available at home yet is paramount

to the development of children.

a large majority of their time. If schools

provide a direct connection to nature, then

they can aid in the overall health and wellbeing

of its students while also developing

problem solving skills, critical thinking, and

imagination.

78

When 99% of academic learning takes place

indoors, we are in direct contradiction of

what we mean when we want children to

explore the world outside of the classroom.

Traditional school design offers very few

opportunities to seamlessly integrate an

outdoor learning experience. There are

outdoor playgrounds, and intermittent spaces

to incorporate physical education—usually

in a windowless, indoor gym—but there are

very few instances where there are readily

accessible learning areas beyond the walls

of the school building. With rising rates of

childhood obesity and more time spent behind

screens than in past generations, a new term

has emerged called “nature deficit disorder.”

Richard Louv, the author who coined this term,

connects the decline in outdoor time with

an increase of psychological and academic

problems in children. By creating spaces

where students and families can connect

with nature in stimulating and exciting ways,

we can directly combat the negative effects

of this disorder. While parks and recreation

areas will continue to be imperative for this,

it is also crucial to incorporate these spaces

into the very places where students spend

Traditional connection to nature is typically only found in outdoor play areas with very few exits leading to them. This does not necessarily

indicate these areas are specifically for learning nor does it suggest the use of naturalist-based curriculum.

79

CONNECTION TO NATURE APPLIED

TO SITE

Terraces

Covered Alcoves

Central Courtyard

Four Corners

Core Slices

Ramped Terrace to Rooftop

80

81

Project Name: Fuji Kindergarten

Year: 2007

Size: -----

Architects: Tezuka Architects

Location: Tokyo, Japan

CASE STUDY

This transformative project and recipient of

numerous awards has changed the way we

view an indoor/outdoor connection for young

school children. Even heralded as ‘the best

kindergarten you’ve ever seen’ 31 this school

is unlike any other. The most striking feature,

the oval roof, allows children to play and

run endlessly on its deck. “Rather than impose

physical boundaries on the children,

they designed a kindergarten as a continuous

space that allows for unfettered learning and

play.” 32 The shape of the roof deck means

everyone is in view of one another, breaking

down barriers and creating a sense of equity.

At this school, everyone is in the center.

The roof area doubles as a nature path and

a playground as it weaves around the existing

Zelkova trees. However, on this playground

you will not find any permanent play

equipment. Instead, the architects wanted

“the architecture itself to function as a giant

playground.” In the center of the oval is an

arena where students can continue to learn

and play outdoors. Just off the ground floor

of this central arena are sliding glass doors

that allow the students to pass freely into the

outdoor areas. The oval roof contains light

wells that act as portals in which pupils can

peer into the classrooms below.

“Tezuka believes standard classroom design

is unnatural and counterproductive to a

positive learning environment. The free plan

design encourages independence and collaboration,

without forcing children to sit still

and silent for long periods of time. “We want

the children raised here to grow into people

who do not exclude anything or anyone. The

key to Fuji Kindergarten was to design spaces

as very open environments, filled with background

noise. When the boundary disappears,

the constraints disappear. Children

need to be treated as a part of the natural

environment.” 33

Fig 2.31

Fig 2.32

+

_

Indoor/Outdoor connection

Unbounded

Could this work across

climates?

Dynamic

Positive learning environment

Fig 2.33

No classroom

82

83

WELCOMING ENTRY

The experience of entering a building powerfully

impacts the way a person feels, reacts, and

intuitively perceives a space. Nowhere is this

more important than it is in a school building.

An entry serves as a transition space. You are

leaving the scenario of the public, outdoor

climate and entering a new realm. This transition,

good or bad, is purely a result of design. It can

feel forced, institutional and abrupt or it can

feel smooth, inviting, and informal. However, the

transition doesn’t begin when you walk across

the threshold of the school doors. It begins when

you enter the school grounds. How and where a

student enters the school will set the tone for his

or hers whole day. The same is true for faculty,

parents and community members. The entry is

the first thing visitors see when arriving at a

school, and it is the last thing to see when they

leave. Consequently, the entry to the school is

a key opportunity to reflect the school’s vision

and identity. One criticism of traditional school

design is that the entry feels generic, impersonal

and forbidding. Additionally, school grounds

are not typically taken into account when

thinking about the entire arrival experience.

By making drop-off areas less vehicle-centric,

having clear pathways to the entry that are

beautifully landscaped and a large, covered

outdoor area where students and community

members can gather as they are waiting would

curate the experience to be one of invitation not

consternation.

Two elements that contribute to a positive

school climate are that users feel a sense of

(1) pride and (2) ownership. An easy way to

support these elements is by incorporating

signature characteristics to the entrance. This

strategy gives all of the users the feeling that

their school is special, unique, and reflective of

environment they are about to enter. An entry

that is personalized and reflects the ethos of

the surrounding community implants a solid

foundation for a positive school environment.

This, however, should not stop or begin when a

user reaches the building. It should be a gradual

and seamless journey from the exterior to the

interior that sets the stage for the message the

school is trying to convey.

Fig 2.34 An entryway into a middle school in Boston, MA

84

85

WELCOMING ENTRY APPLIED TO SITE

START

END

END

START

START

In a traditional school setting, the vast majority of students are dropped off from the curb of

their car and enter through a constrained entryway. Their journey is short and unwelcoming.

With the applied design principle, a walking path could be created to wind through the

neighborhood, leading students to school. In this scenario parents and guardians can accompany

their child(ren) and are welcomed though various entry points that are designed

to be open and inviting. While the entire experience cannot be curated, it can be more

thoughtfully designed to ease the transition to and from school.

86

87

Project Name: Wide School Buytenwech

Year: 2003

Size: 1,000 students

Architects: Frencken Scholl

Location: Ladderhaak, Nieuwkoop | Netherlands

CASE STUDY

This school is located on the outskirts

of a nearby village and combines three

different micro schools on the campus. Of

great importance to the architects was for

the school to be accessible via a variety

of modes and transportations. “For those

traveling by car, there is a vehicular dropoff

at the opposite end of the playground. A

special bicycle route was constructed from the

nearby village with a small tunnel under the

busy trunk road, and a new pedestrian bridge

will form a safe link with the new housing

estate being constructed nearby.” 34 There

was a conscious decision to make sure the

transition to the school, no matter the distance

one was traveling, safe and inviting. Utilizing

the canals, an iconic feature of the landscape

in the Netherlands, to isolate the school is

a nod to vernacular identifiers that hone in

on the community who would be using this

structure.

benches, playscapes, covered waiting areas in

case of inclement weather, and outdoor tables

where students and parents can gather as they

are coming and going. The identity of each of the

schools are differentiated through colorful metal

cladding and each of their large interior entries

are decorated in their school’s distinct color.

A nice touch were the addition of displays for

student work that boasts school pride.

Fig 2.35

There are recesses in the three schools that

form one grand entrance for the entire school

community. The outdoor entrance contains

Fig 2.36

+

_

Entrance considered for various

transportation modes

Landscaping and greenery on

courtyard is lacking

Transition to school starts the

moment students leave homeSchool

identity rolled into design

Three separate entrances could

have been avoided

Fig 2.37 Fig 2.38

Entrance is not riddled with vehicles

88

89

PASSIVE

OBSERVATION

In recent years, the entry into school has

become a highly contentious topic in school

design and education policy. Sadly because

of horrific acts of gun violence that have been

occurring at a more frequent pace, ensuring

students and faculty are safe from intruders is

a hard truth designers must reconcile with. The

most common response for increasing security

measures has been to tack prison components

onto their campuses. It is not uncommon to

find metal detectors encasing the front doors,

uniformed officers patting down students,

installation of meshed glass or worse, the

removal of glass altogether, security cameras,

and in the most extreme cases—equipping

teachers with personal guns and weapons.

While these fears and concerns are valid,

critics firmly believe the answer to additional

security should not come at the expense of the

negative psychological effects of the users.

There are tactful ways to employ security

measures and supervision without giving off

an oppressive, omnipotent presence in school.

Additional gates, buzzers and fencing

negates the creation of an open and inviting

space for students: “Surrounding the building

with steel fences and a locked gate might

be effective in security terms, but it is

extremely intimidating and runs counter to

the concepts of community involvement and

inclusion that we have already seen are so

important in creating successful schools.”

By any means necessary, schools should

avoid creating the “fortress syndrome.”

Myopically, citizens implement these security

measures without considering how this plays

into the hearts and minds of the students

themselves. This is particularly relevant when

it comes to students of color, or victims of

trauma who have encountered these same

mechanisms in instances that do not come

with protection, but instead with persecution

and discrimination.

Thankfully, there are design features that

can enable more passive measures, such as:

curating site lines to maximize the visibility

of oncoming threats, open common spaces,

transparent partitions, low walls, or one-way

screens. One form of passive observation is

a method stemming from Jane Jacobs’ urban

design masterpiece, The Death and Life of

Great American Cities, called eyes on the

street. Jacobs argues,

“You can’t make people watch streets they

do not want to watch. Safety on the streets

by surveillance and mutual policing of one

another sounds grim, but in reality, it is not

grim. The safety of the street works best, most

casually, and with least frequent taint of

hostility or suspicion precisely where people

are using and most enjoying the streets

voluntarily and are least conscious, normally,

that they are policing.”

Administrative offices and faculty areas are

in the best position to provide this. If these

spaces have site lines that allow them to

quickly look up from their work and have a

full view of common areas or the entrance,

this could ensure that there are always adult

eyes monitoring the school and can intervene

quickly.

When a student is treated as though they are

an imminent threat, they are less willing to

respect those who impinge these feelings. The

result of incorporating passive observation

into the design instills a sense of belonging

and reinforces the sentiment that students

are respected and welcomed in this learning

environment.

Fig 2.39

Fig 2.40

90

91

PASSIVE OBSERVATION APPLIED

TO SITE

Sitelines in a traditional school entry provide a very narrow view. The position of adminstrative offices

being perpendicular to the entrance, as well as the opaque brick cladding of the building combine to offer

a limited scope.

By changing the shape and position of the entry and reception, as well as exchanging bricks to glass

cladding, site lines can now provide a 360° view

92

93

Project Name: Kingsdale School

Year: 2005

Size:14,191m2 / 152,750ft2

Architects: De Rijke Marsh Morgan

Location: London

CASE STUDY

This study is a true testament of how a failing

school can be turned around through the

power of design. In 1998 Kingsdale had

been deemed as ‘failing’ after the chief

inspector of schools described it as one

of the worst he’d ever seen. 35 Rife with

school suspensions and inadequate grades,

in a last-ditch effort to save the school,

an extensive renovation was done to the

existing1950’s building. The results have been

overwhelmingly positive and the school is

now one of the most successful in the district.

Since the renovation, teachers and principles

reported a decrease from 280 average

expulsions per year, down to nearly zero and

an increase in their graduation rate from 15%

to 70%.

The architects saw this as a physical and

metaphysical transformation, wishing to

transform the building and community morale

all at once. “The design exploits the potential

of the existing building, superimposing a

new roof over the internal courtyard, thereby

offering new dining facilities, assembly and

performance space, improved circulation, and

social and house-based activities. Within this

largest space ever created in a British school,

learning goes beyond the curriculum and

includes a music performance and cinema

auditorium, a 1,200 student assembly area,

and dining facilities cool enough to ‘chill’

in. Aerial walkways, bridge and stairs make

new circulation connections. The project

was characterised by collaboration – or

participation – as we like to call it.” 36

This inserted atrium provides plenty of

opportunities for passive surveillance. The

interwoven and open circulation pathways

allow for clear site lines across the open

expanse. The windows that line the interior

walls of the classrooms also provide

transparency without the need for the CCTV

cameras that had previously littered the

ceilings of the old building. The entrance into

the central atrium is flanked on all sides by

administration offices that too are encased

in a combination of glass and perforated

screens - further mitigating the potential

of bullying or security threats. This project

has gone on to receive many awards and

its elements of passive security have been

replicated in other schools throughout the city

with much success.

+

Entrance considered for various transportation

modes

Transition to school starts the moment students

leave home

School identity rolled into design

_

Landscaping and greenery on courtyard

is lacking

Three separate entrances could have

been avoided

Entrance is not riddlesd with vehicles

94

95

TEACHER AS

FACILITATOR

In the large majority of schools across the

U.S., the teacher is key player in the learning

model. Teachers assume an authoritarian role

in the classroom where their main objective

is to transfer knowledge onto the students,

reinforcing submission and disengagement. This

method of teaching assumes that all students

should learn the same content at the same time.

Evidence shows this is ineffective, especially

in public schools where there is a wide range

of students who have varied competencies

and aptitude. Our current teaching methods

prioritize what is most efficient for doctrine and

not what is most efficient for learning.

While at first glance this seems attributable

more to education policy or pedagogical

theories, closer examination reveals that the

built environment encourages this behavior. The

position of the teacher in the room dictates how

all other activities are arranged. The teacher’s

throne-like desk occupies a large swath of

real estate in the classroom, forcing submissive

orientation to the teacher and commanding

spatial hierarchy in the room.

In order to design a truly student-centered

learning environment, then we must take the

teachers out of the center. Giving students

agency in what, when, and where they learn is

the first step in this direction. By taking on the

role of facilitator rather than ruler, teachers

can embody a more passive role yet still be

active participants in students’ education.

96

97

Tradtional role of teacher

Potential positioning of teachers as facilitators

98

99

Project Name: Hellerup School

Year: 2002

Size:8,200m2 / 88,684ft2

Architects: Arkitema

Location: Hellerup, Finland

CASE STUDY

This award-winning school is continuously

heralded as one of the most innovative

school models across the globe. Even though

it was constructed over 15 years ago, there

are many commendable aspects that continue

to be relevant to this day. When you enter

this school, it is palpably different. You are

not greeted by an obtrusive administrative

office, instead you see shoes littered across

the floor and students scuttling around this

three-story building. Their school philosophy;

let students decide how they best learn. In

Hellerup, you will find a lot of student agency

but you will not find a single classroom.

Opting for home bases in more peaceful corners

of the building and its free-form activities

occur closer to the core. The central stair

is not merely for circulation, but also where

you find balconettes, and bridges where students

can sit, reflect, or move about. Instead

of only leading users from one floor to another,

the central core is a hub of activities such

as informal chatting, group work, presentations,

or large assemblies. “For the majority

of the day students are free to study wherever

suits their fancy, alone or in groups. They

cram into nooks and crannies throughout

the school, dragging tables to quiet corners

or busy balconies overlooking the library.

Lockers can be moved to serve as barriers.

The school’s furnishings are designed to be

flexible and multipurpose. Anything goes.” 37

Each home area is designed specific to the

age group of the students and are highly

customizable from day to day. One aspect

that has aided in its overwhelming success is

that the school has built-in over 100 hours of

training for new teachers to this school. This

speaks volumes to the testament that you cannot

place a traditionally trained teacher into

a school and expect them to be able to utilize

the space to its fullest potential. From the exterior,

its regimented and cubical facade is in

direct contradiction to the organic and loose

feel of the interior. “The dynamic design gives

concrete and daily opportunity to challenge

common ideas and test new possibilities”. 38

+

Teachers as facilitators

_

Only direct access to nature is via ground floor

Unique arrangement of classrooms

Certain sterility/lack of color for a school

Multi-modal learning zones

Student agency

Professional development for teachers on how

to best use the space

100

101

HEALTHY BUILDINGS

One of the most scientifically analyzed

aspects of a learning environment are

the environmental conditions of a school

building. This includes: air quality, ventilation,

temperature control, natural light, acoustics,

quality of artificial lighting, and efficiency

and sustainability of a building.

LIGHTING

We spend thousands of hours inside school

buildings and we cannot afford to do this

in spaces without proper lighting, both

natural and artificial. Studies have shown

that students in classrooms with natural

light progress 20% faster on math tests, and

26% faster on reading tests than students

in windowless classrooms. 39 Natural light

also plays an important role in cortisol,

melatonin cycles and circadian rhythms—

which in turn influence the user’s ability

to concentrate and stabilize moods. In the

1970’s, architects scaled down the size of

windows to cut-down on visual distractions.

However, it has been proven that there is a

healthy amount of distraction for students

that blocking views to the outside thwarts

from occurring. In addition to health benefits,

utilizing natural light has recognized benefits

of improving the efficiency of the building’s

mechanical systems and thereby reducing

operational costs. Natural light can be

provided through windows, skylights, partial

walls, light shelves, solar tubes and various

other methods. While there are many benefits

to natural light, it should not be haphazardly

pierced into a space so that it creates harsh

glares, heavy contrasts or hot solar gains.

Poorly planned natural lighting can actually

have adverse effects that outweigh the

positive benefits if not carefully considered.

When natural light is insufficient, there

becomes a need for artificial lighting. Gone

are the days of purple fluorescent hang

lights. With electric lights being the number

one consumer of energy in school facilities,

it is a big opportunity to design lighting

that is energy efficient, yet palatable for the

users’ needs. Good lighting design should

at minimum consider the following elements:

illuminance (intensity of light), glare, flicker,

and color. With these 4 elements, you

achieve a high-quality level of uniformity that

minimizes visual discomfort. Additionally,

lighting should come with built-in controls

and dimmers to accommodate the variety of

lighting tasks that a school building requires

throughout the changes in the day.

With respect to health, comfort and learning,

indoor air quality (often referred to as

IAQ) is considered by many to be a crucial

AIR QUALITY

component in the experience of building

occupants. Good air quality decreases

instances of respiratory illnesses, improves

student attendance, and increases one’s

ability to concentrate. Yet, according to the

National Center for Education Statistics, over

half of the schools surveyed in 2014 have

reported having issues with air quality and

the U.S. government reported that the air is

unfit to breathe in nearly 15,000 schools 40 . It

seems intuitive to provide fresh, clean air into

a building, but as we see in our schools, this

is unfortunately not always the case: “Despite

the clear need for fresh air in schools, the

systems that are the principal source of

ventilation other than windows don’t always

deliver adequate supplies of fresh air. These

include not just the ducted systems influenced

by the 1970s energy crisis, which often

delivered only about one third of the fresh air

supplies now deemed adequate, but a whole

variety of ventilation systems with their own

unique problems.” 41 Air quality is directly

correlated to student performance and

shows that students in classrooms with higher

air ventilation rates scored 14-15% higher

on standardized testing 42 . Asthma, being

the most common chronic illness affecting

over 6.2 million children, can be improved

through a high standard of IAQ. In fact, a

study conducted by the CDC found a 38.5%

average reduction of asthma in buildings with

improved air quality 43 . As demonstrated, IAQ

is not something to be taken lightly and the

proper management of air quality, moisture

control, and ventilation should be carefully

planned and executed in order to provide

one of the most basic physiological needs for

children.

TEMPERATURE CONTROL

Closely linked to air quality is temperature

control. Uncomfortable temperatures can

cause feelings of fatigue, irritability, and

discomfort. Warm temperatures promote

bacteria and mold growth, the two main

contributors to severe health issues and

culprits of what is known as ‘sick building

syndrome’ in which the occupants of a

building experience acute health related

issues that seem to be linked directly to the

time spent in the building 44 .

Thermal discomfort in students rapidly

deteriorates users task performance. For

every 1.8°F drop between 77-68°F, students’

speed performance on tests was improved

from 2-4% in all tasks 45 . There are two

primary ways to control temperature and

ventilation in a building. The first is to bring

in a sufficient amount of air from the outside

through mechanical systems, and the second

is to bring in air directly from the outdoors.

In one study, students in classrooms with

higher outdoor air ventilation rates scored

14 to 15 percent higher on standardized

test scores than children in classrooms with

lower outdoor air ventilation rates 46 . Utilizing

natural ventilation can have other benefits

such as offloading mechanical costs, reducing

the amount of toxins produced by building

materials and activities, and can also give

users greater power over their respective

comforts. A study conducted on IAQ

found that the best teachers in the country

emphasized their ability to control classroom

temperature as central to the performance of

teachers and students. 47

ACOUSTICS

The most common complaint of teachers and

students is the acoustical quality of their

learning environment. Improper acoustics

effect how well students can hear what others

are saying, increases stress, and impairs

their abilities to concentrate. Teachers in a

poor acoustic environment have to speak

louder and contributes to the reason why

teachers miss more workdays for voicerelated

problems than employees in any

other profession 48 . Speech intelligibility

is particularly important for students with

hearing impediments or for those who are

English language learners. We know that

sounds provoke emotions; they can have a

calming effect, or contrarily, they can promote

fear. In general, schools tend to have noise

reflective surfaces as material choices in the

past opted for more sturdier surfaces as they

were easier to clean. However, acoustical

technologies have come a long way in recent

years and it is now time to revisit ways in

which we can apply better acoustic materials

to school buildings. In the same way that

poor acoustics are a product of design, so

too can good acoustics be a product of

design. There is a common misconception that

classrooms need to be perfectly quiet. This is

not necessarily true, for research states that

learners feel more energized by their work

when there is a certain amount of background

noise. It is the distracting noise from outside

traffic, adjacent rooms, and the most common

culprit — noisy mechanical systems, that are

102

103

an impediment to learning. One outstanding

example of acoustical inadequacy can be

found in the standards set by the Los Angeles

Unified School District; one of the largest set

of standards to ever be set in the country.

Their standards allow the use of classroom

ventilation and air conditioning units that are

up to 20 decibels noisier than what would be

permitted by Swedish standards 49 .

SUSTAINABILITY

As a central element of community structure,

school buildings should model a standard

of sustainability. It is a moral imperative

to acknowledge how modern society is

impacting the planet, and schools can play an

important role by encouraging the community

to take steps toward sustainability in their

lives beyond the school grounds. By serving

as both a place for the study of environmental

impact and as a model of good practice,

sustainable schools can serve to empower our

youth with concrete examples for direct action

in their own futures. 50

energy savings can be accomplished by

investing in high quality systems, producing

a return on investment in a matter of years.

Common aspects to consider include: power

management via sleep modes on computers

and electronics, timed LED lights, updated

HVAC systems, passive design that orients the

building for warmth in winter and cooling for

hot days, well insulated building envelopes,

cool roofing, energy efficient windows, and

solar panels. Many schools are starting

to embrace sustainability and renewable

energies not only for financial benefits but

also as a creative platform for learning. By

exposing students to sustainability ethos in the

very building they spend much of their time,

gives them direct connection to a pressing

societal issue and marks the beginning of its

solution.

Sustainability also offers a solution to the

high costs associated with maintenance. U.S.

school districts spend $6 billion each year

on energy — second only to salaries 51 . While

energy costs are only ~2% of a school’s

budget, it is a significant expense especially

when tallied year after year. In fact, the

Department of Energy states that most schools

would be able to save on average 25% of

these costs by implementing simple energy

efficient principles and modernized systems.

This 25% decrease in energy consumption

would result in a savings of more than $3

billion that we could better spend elsewhere

on educating our students. 52

104

In a typical school building, lighting, space

heating, and water heating represent the

bulk of total use. By targeting these areas,

105

S

E

W

N

N

Radiant Floor Heating

Playscape Rooftop

Briese Soleil

Triple glazed windows with

functioning panes

Rainwater

Collection

Geothermal Exchange Unit

106

107

Project Name: Martin Luther King Junior

School

Year: 2017

Size:170,000 ft2

Architects: Perkins Eastman

Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

CASE STUDY

This large campus that is equipped with

elementary, middle, and pre-schools, an

afterschool program, and community school

programs, was designed to truly be a

community school. Most notably, this school

is the second highest-scoring new school

in the world certified under USGBC’s LEED

for Schools-New Construction system. A

remarkable achievement. Each building acts

as a distinct “neighborhood” that are all

interconnected by an internal King Street. The

community accessible programs are centrally

located in the heart of the school so that each

academic wing can be made inaccessible

allowing use of shared community spaces

separately. The separation of buildings also

designates system zones that will turn on

only when needed, thus saving on energy.

“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. scored so highly

on the LEED Platinum because all of the

stakeholders were committed to the vision

of creating the most sustainable, highestperformance

learning environments possible.”

This achievement was made possible by

aligning all systems and environmental

aspects. “Ranging from proper massing and

solar orientation with systems to conserve

resources. These resources included the

ground source heat pumps for heating and

cooling, the on-demand dedicated outdoor air

ventilation, extensive photo-voltaic systems,

the graywater system for flushing toilets, the

building envelope and light shelves to those

that enhance Indoor Environmental Quality

such as lighting, acoustics, as well as healthy

materials, and elements that transformed what

would otherwise be concealed infrastructure into

opportunities. Most importantly, these strategies

were utilized to create light-filled spaces that

are quiet, comfortable, flexible, and beautiful

– spaces where students and teachers can

collaborate together or focus individually.” 53

This project has set a high bar in terms of

environmental quality for a school. Part of its

success is attributed to their consistent use of

energy modeling and analysis-- down to the

detailed energy load each electric outlet could

carry. By incorporating this tool from the start,

it helped inform design decisions in real-time to

determine how to optimize daylight and views

in the learning environment. The energy use is

60% less than typical educational buildings in

New England and, according to the project’s

senior designer, “the results are among the most

beautiful we have ever designed”. 54

+

Environmental sustainability

Prioritization of high quality

environmental conditions

_

Lack of creativity in

circulation

Using mechanical systems as

a means to educate students

108

109

3

110

111

112

113

SITE

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

WEST ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

124

125

FRONT ELEVATION

REAR ELEVATION

126

127

1ST FLOOR PLAN

2ND FLOOR PLAN

N

N

5ʼ

10ʼ

20ʼ

5ʼ

10ʼ

20ʼ

128

129

LOCATION

BATH STREET

ARLINE ST.

The site for this thesis is located in the Smith

Hill neighborhood of Providence, Rhode

Island. Built in 1927, this warehouse was

formerly the maintenance headquarters

for the Rhode Island Department of

Transportation and remained as such until

2010 when Quality Foods, a neighboring

business, purchased it. Since 2010, and some

documentation suggests years before, it has

laid vacant. While underutilized over the

years, the condition of the building is still in

good standing.

BATH STREET

WOONASQUATUCKET RIVER

The building is zoned as an historic overlay

in an M-1 (light industrial) district. It is a

masonry frame type with a slab and column

structure. It stands two stories tall and each

story is 15,800 square feet, for an indoor

total of 31,600 square feet. The entire

envelope of the building is covered in large

steel framed windows providing abundant

natural lighting even into the deepest core of

the building. The 15-foot clearance between

floor plates gives ample space to introduce

mechanical structures required to bring this

building up to modern codes and standards

without sacrificing design. The building is

distinctly marked by its yellow brick and

beautiful fenestration reminiscent of the art

deco era in which it was constructed. There

are two surface lots adjacent to and across

the street from the site that provide potential

opportunity for expansion and growth.

The site is located in the center of a trifecta of

opportunity; wedged between the downtown

economic core, a densely populated

residential zone, and at the edge of both an

active and transitioning industrial area.

130

131

132

1. DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC CORE

Traditionally, schools are centrally located in

the middle of neighborhoods and catered to

families in which there was typically one stayat-home

parent. They intentionally placed

schools within a comfortable walking distance

to the home in order that the parent could

easily pick up and drop off their children on

foot. In modern times, not only are children

no longer walking or biking to school, but the

era of the one-parent income is no longer the

norm. In 1969, 41% of children in grades K-8

lived within one mile of school; in which 89%

of these children usually walked or bicycled

to school. Compared to 2009, when there was

a slight decrease to 31% students living within

one mile of school, but came with a sharp

decline of only 35% of these students walking

or biking to school 55 . Additionally, a 2015

Pew research poll showed that the share of

two-parent households in which both parents

work full time now stand at 46% 56 . While

location is only one of many factors parents

consider when choosing which school their

child should attend, parents now prefer their

children’s school be located in a place that is

in route to and from work. A school located

near the parents’ place of employment would

make pick-ups and drop-offs easier, as well

as quicker access to the school in case of

emergency or illness. The location of this

site being a mere 3-minute drive, or a short

15-minute walk, from the downtown economic

and transit cores of Providence could fill this

void for parents and families.

2. NEIGHBORHOOD

This site sits on the bordering edge between

the Smith Hill and Valley neighborhoods

in West Providence. Both of these

neighborhoods have a unique, long-standing

history in this city. Prior to the 1800’s, this

area was largely uninhabited land used for

livestock by early settlers. When the industrial

revolution began in the United States, the

Woonasquatucket river as well as the soon

to be added railroad arteries, became lined

with bourgeoning industries. Simultaneously,

these neighborhoods witnessed a large influx

of Irish and Eastern European immigrant

communities who in turn filled employment

opportunities at these nearby mills and

factories. As a result, from the late 1800’s

-1930’s this area expanded into a densely

populated residential core that was in close

distance to their livelihoods. Between the end

of World War II and the 1970’s, many mills

and factories closed and the surrounding

residential neighborhoods went into decline.

To this day, the majority of the residents in

these neighborhoods remain low-income, with

“the incidence of poverty up since the year

2000, particularly amongst Hispanics, for

whom the poverty rate more than doubled.

Overall, more than one in three (36%)

persons in Smith Hill was poor, 33 percent

of families were living below poverty, 48.4

percent of all children were poor, and one out

of five elderly persons had an income below

the poverty level.” 57

According to the 2000 census, 6,216

residents live in the Smith Hill neighborhood

and another 4,765 residents live in the Valley

neighborhood. Yet, Valley neighborhood does

not contain a single public school in their

neighborhood. Both neighborhoods are home

to majority non-white residents, with Hispanic

and Latino residents representing the majority

of the neighborhood’s demographic makeup.

It is also worth noting that the dense

make-up of this area is characterized by the

quintessential New England triple decker

that are further subdivided into multi-family

homes. According to the city of Providence,

more than three quarters of all homes in

Smith Hill were located in two to four family

buildings 58 . The location of this site straddling

two densely populated, low-income, highminority

neighborhoods further illustrates the

opportunity the adaptation of this building

could provide to the surrounding community.

133

3. INDUSTRIAL LEGACY

Providence’s charms and characteristics are

largely defined by its inventory and legacy

of industrial buildings. Instead of giving way

to the destruction of these buildings, it is ever

more important to creatively adapt and reuse

these buildings so that they remain a part of

the city for many years to come. In July, 2018

Providence launched what they are calling the

Woonasquatucket Vision Plan:

& Sharpe’s industrial campus into a dense

residential complex — there is reason to

believe this transition away from vacant

industrial buildings into residences will

continue to be replicated. With an increase

in commerce and residential housing comes

heightened demand for additional public

schools.

“The City of Providence, in

partnership with the community,

is proud to present the

Woonasquatucket Vision Plan–

a vision for the area along the

Woonasquatucket River from

Paragon Mills to Providence

Place Mall– including portions

of the City’s Olneyville, Valley,

and Smith Hill neighborhoods.

Funded by an Area-wide Planning

Grant from the US Environmental

Protection Agency, the City of

Providence worked closely with

community members to plan for

the thoughtful redevelopment

of polluted industrial sites to

stimulate economic development

that benefits Providence residents

and strengthens environmental

and social resilience in the

Project Area. The Vision Plan

will be used to guide the many

investments planned and underway

in the Project Area, determine

other needed investments, and

advocate and secure resources for

implementation of the community’s

vision.” 59

The location of this site on this corridor will

prove to be advantageous for the city of

Providence and their vision for this area.

With potential funding streams and resources

already being dedicated to this corridor, it

promises great potential for Providence to

develop this site into a school. As we have

witnessed with the nearby transformation

of the former industrial powerhouse Brown

3.3 One the earliest worker’s dwellings. This street now known as the historic Burnside Row,

shows typical housing structures for the neighborhoods.

134

135

3.4 3.5

3.10

1881 print of Brown & Sharpe manufacturing company. Once

the world’s largest manufacturer of machine tools.

The Brown & Sharpe complex as recently renovated

lofts and now known at “The Foundry”.

3.6 3.7

1881 print of Nicholson File company. Once the world’s largest

manufacturer of machine-made files. Located on Acorn Street.

Of the 24 original mill buildings that made up the

Nicholson File complex, 20 have historic status and

contain various businesses and residences. Such as

‘The Wurks’ artist collective shown above.

3.8 3.9

Map showing the project area for the Woonasquatucket Vision Plan with site location identified

1900’s photo of U.S. Rubber Factory on the banks of

Woonasquatucket River with R.I. Locomotive Works in the

background.

A recent major development has captured these industrial

complexes and transformed them into residences and

commerical spaces for local businesses such at Waterfire Arts

shown above.

136

137

3.11

WHY PROVIDENCE

The state of Providence’s public schools

is dire. NAEP is the largest nationally

representative and continuing assessment

of what American students know and can

do in various subject areas. Often called

the “Nation’s Report Card,” NAEP provides

information about trends in State and national

student achievement over time and allows

educational achievement to be compared

across States. According to the most recent

NAEP report card for Rhode Island, only 39%

of 4th graders scored proficient or advanced

in reading and math, while only 38% of 8th

graders scored proficient or advanced in

Reading, and nine percentage points lower at

30% in Math 60 . When looking at the State’s

own assessments, data shows that for the

2017-2018 school year 15% of all enrolled

students met or exceeded expectations in

English Language Arts, and only 11% met

or exceeded expectations in Math 61 . When

comparing state assessments to other districts,

there are only four other school districts in

the state of Rhode Island that scored at or

below this level. When a school fails to meet

standards or expectations for two years in

a row, the U.S. Department of Education

requires that school to implement what is

called a school improvement plan (SIP). This

is a federal safeguard put in place to ensure

students receive a guaranteed minimum

quality of education. Schools that are placed

on SIPs have two years to make academic

gains, or risk significant restructuring,

and in some cases, face the possibility of

closing altogether. In Providence, 37 of its

41 public schools are currently assigned to

an SIP 62 . Additionally, when 63% of Rhode

Island’s students in two-year colleges require

remediation, and only 65% of students who

enter public colleges in Rhode Island earn

their degrees, it is apparent students are not

being set up for success 63 .

facilities on 306 campuses 64 . Yet, according

to a 2016 report commissioned by Rhode

Island’s School Board Authority, there are

$2.2 billion dollars of facility deficiency costs

for these school buildings to meet aspirational

standards. $627 million of that is identified

as “high-priority” or urgent expenditures in

order that those school buildings are safe,

warm, and dry 65 . In fact, only 12.4% of the

state’s facilities are considered by the state

to be in good to average health. Providence

as the largest district in the state serves over

24,000 students across 41 school campuses,

and unfortunately only 6 of the district

schools are considered to be in good to

average condition 66 .

Experts attribute this issue largely to the aging

facilities across the state, as the average age

of Rhode Island’s school campuses are 56

years. Compounding this issue, in the wake

of the 2008 recession, Rhode Island placed

a moratorium on new facility construction

with the exception of “serious health or safety

problems.” This resulted in the further neglect

of buildings that were already in mediocre

condition and failing to meet 21st century

standards. In 2016, Governor Raimondo

called on legislature to lift the moratorium

and since then, the state has spent $250

million dollars on such projects 67 . While the

lift has certainly helped, the back-pile of

repairs in addition to the huge budget deficits

has resulted in a mass quantity of buildings

that are in poor condition.

Student population data of Providence Public Schools

Beyond academic performance, the physical

condition of RI public schools is also of great

concern. Rhode Island has more than 24.1

million square feet of permanent educational

Map of all schools currently enrolled in a School Improvement Plan (SIP)

138

139

4

140

141

PROGRAM

The program for this site will be a Middle

School for approximately 250 students in

grades 6-8. The estimated teacher to student

ratio would be 1:18. While the national

average ratio is 26:1 for secondary schools,

research shows that maintaining a small

student to teacher ratio has positive affects

on the academic outcomes of students. For

the purposes of the replicability I hope

this thesis to serve, I am not electing any

one particular school-type or pedagogical

theory. Instead, I have opted to showcase

a more universal approach in which these

elements could be parsed and applied to

any variety of schools and teaching styles.

It would, however, be a public school open

to all nearby zoned students and would be

an inclusive environment that is welcoming

of all learner types. The school in its current

design can accommodate up to 350 students,

offering built-in flexibility and breathing

room for those numbers and ratios to expand.

While this school has been prescribed as a

Middle School, with some minor tweaks, the

same principles are easily translatable into

other age ranges such as Elementary or High

Schools.

142

143

QUANTITATIVE PROGRAMMING

These two spreadsheets outline a preliminary quantitative analysis conducted

between traditional and proposed programming square footages. As seen,

traditionally designed schools equate to a nearly 40% increase of needed interior

square footage. With careful planning and innovative solutions, the amount of

square footage needed for a learning environment can be more efficiently used

without compromising the quality of education.

PROGRAM NO. OF UNITS NEEDED SQ. FOOTAGE OF EACH TOTAL SQ. FOOTAGE NEEDED

COMMENTS

PROGRAM NO. OF UNITS NEEDED SQ. FOOTAGE OF EACH TOTAL SQ. FOOTAGE NEEDED COMMENTS

GROSS INTERIOR 25,520

GROSS INTERIOR SF 41,220

Proposed programming

Traditional programming

144

145

30,000 FT 2

EXISTING

PROPOSED

—

7%

TRADITIONAL

+

41%

146

147

PROGRAM MODALITIES

The following charts list all of the possible programming and learning modalities that users would

potentially utilize throughout an ordinary school day. They are then categorized into 5 separate groups in

order to lump similar programs together.

NOOKS

1. INDEPENDENT STUDY

2. ONE-ON-ONE LEARNING WITH TEACHER/TUDOR

3. COUNSELING

4. VIRTUAL OR LAPTOP BASED WORK

GROUP WORK

5. STUDENT PRESENTATIONS

6. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS

7. TEACHER LECTURE OR SEMINAR

8. STORYTELLING

9. SMALL GROUP WORK

10. LARGE GROUP WORK

11. TEAM COLLABORATION

PRIVATE

NOOKS

SUPPORT

GROUP WORK

INTERDISCIPLINARY

PUBLIC

ALL SCHOOL

12. PEER-TO-PEER LEARNING

INTERDISCIPLINARY

13. PERFORMANCE BASED LEARNING

14. MUSIC

15. ART

16. DESIGN & MAKING

17. SCIENCE

18. MEDIA

19. TECH-BASED LEARNING

20. LIBRARY & REFERENCE

QUIET

NOOKS

SUPPORT

GROUP WORK

INTERDISCIPLINARY

ALL SCHOOL

NOISY

INFORMAL

21. CAFE

22. ALL SCHOOL ASSEMBLY

23. NATURE- BASED LEARNING

24. PLAY & MOVEMENT

25. ENTRANCE

SUPPORT

26. TEACHER COLLABORATION

27. KITCHENETTES

28. RESTROOMS

29. OPEN & CLOSED STORAGE

30. ADMINISTRATION

31. HOMEBASE

148

149

~150 FT²

~150--500 FT²

~500 FT²

~1,000 FT²

~2,000 FT²

PLAY &

MOVEMENT

ART

SCIENCE

DESIGN &

MAKING

KITCHENETTE

MEDIA

MANDATORY ADJACENCY

TEACHER

COLLABORATION

ENTRANCE

DESIRED ADJACENCY

LECTURE/

SEMINAR

TECH

VIRTUAL &

LAPTOP WORK

ADMINISTRATION

PERFORMANCE

STORYTELLING

ROUNDTABLE

CAFE

COUNSELING

LEARNING

MUSIC

LIBRARY &

REFERENCE

CLOSED STORAGE

HOMEBASE

RESTROOMS

STUDENT

PRESENTATION

INDEPENDENT

STUDY

1:1

PEER-TO-PEER

SMALL GROUP

OPEN STORAGE

NATURE

BASED

LEARNING

LARGE GROUP

TEAM

COLLABORATION

ASSEMBLY

150

151

1. INDEPENDENT STUDY

NOOKS

2. ONE-ON-ONE LEARNING WITH TEACHER/TUTOR

3. COUNSELING

Climb-in 1:1/Tutor Built-in With Storage

4. VIRTUAL OR LAPTOP BASED WORK

Two-tier Small Group

1. STUDENT PRESENTATIONS

GROUP WORK

2. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS

3. TEACHER LECTURE OR SEMINAR

4. STORYTELLING

5. SMALL GROUP WORK

6. LARGE GROUP WORK

Acoustic Ceiling

Acoustic Panels

Sliding Curtains

Open Cave

Pivoting Walls

7. TEAM COLLABORATION

Group Work Tables

Recessed Small Group

1. TEACHER COLLABORATION

SUPPORT

2. KITCHENETTES

3. RESTROOMS

4. OPEN & CLOSED STORAGE

5. ADMINISTRATION

Opaque/Transparent Gradients

Shutters

Perforations

6. HOMEBASE

INTERDISCIPLINARY

ALL SCHOOL

1. PERFORMANCE BASED LEARNING

2. MUSIC

3. ART

4. DESIGN & MAKING

5. SCIENCE

6. MEDIA

7. TECH-BASED LEARNING

8. MEDIA CENTER

1. CAFE

2. ALL SCHOOL ASSEMBLY

3. NATURE- BASED LEARNING

4. INDOOR PLAY & MOVEMENT

5. ENTRANCE

Raised Floor

Folding Walls

Perforations as pattern

Sliding Doors

Display & Writable surfaces

Schematic diagrams showing

various examples of how

each of these modalities

could look like. These

illustrations pay particular

attention to wall treatments

and partition applications

in order to provide softer,

more flexible boundaries

instead of hard, impassable

barriers that are typically

seen in a public school.

152

153

5

154

155

DESIGN

156

The concept of this design is rooted in the

previously defined 10 design principles in

section 2. By putting theory into practice,

the 10 design elements, coupled with the

programming modalities outlined in section

4 combine to create a truly student-centric

learning environment. The goal was to create

a space that is in direct contradiction to

existing disciplinary architectural principles.

By physically placing the student at the center

of design yields a liberating, activated space

that effectively serves multiple learning styles.

Characteristic to this design is the interplay of

the conformity and symmetry in the outward

appearance of the school building with its

non-regular and free-form organization on

the interior

The floor plan is largely organized into 3

sections: (1) Support programs such as kitchenettes,

administrative offices and restrooms

(2) Open learning zones for large group and

interdisciplinary work and (3) acoustically

private zones for small group and 1:1 based

learning. Furniture was carefully chosen to

balance the need for flexibility and consistency.

The custom shapes of the flexible

work tables allow for an endless number of

arrangements and can change the floor plan

in a matter of minutes. Paying special mind to

acoustical considerations, smaller groups and

1:1 learning activities are placed away from

the open learning areas.

Careful to not place any form of constriction

or restriction on the users, this school carefully

considered barriers, boundaries, and zoning.

In this school you will not find any impervious

walls. Replacing solid barriers instead

with glazing or perforated partitions so that

visual connections are maintained while also

providing moments for acoustic isolation that

is critical for learning environments. Instead

of identical boxes strung along a corridor,

divisions are created through careful placement

of furnishings, flooring, and customized

insertions such as the school’s media center.

By challenging traditional design, the physical

learning environment becomes one of the

most important learning tools for the students

and teachers. Depending on the activity, there

is opportunity for both students and teachers

to appropriate the school building in the best

way they see fit. Diversifying the types of

spaces and providing a breadth of resources

makes room for differentiated learning for all

types of learners to thrive.

The interior is marked by a striking, spiraling

staircase that winds its way through the center

of the building-- from the main entrance on

the ground floor to the rooftop play scape.

This key gesture was inspired by taking the

view of a traditional double-loaded corridor

and deforming it beyond recognition. It

stands as a cheerful symbol for a new way

forward in 21st century school design. This

gesture offers a number of positive attributes

to the school, including: an endless and

playful circulation path, a physical central

point as the heart of the school, and a mark

of identity and pride for the school community.

At the base of the helical stair is an allschool

assembly space that can also be used

as informal gathering space for meals, solo

work time, or laptop based virtual work. As

the stair moves upward the visibility increases

and provides a 360 view of the entire school

from top to bottom which fortifies the transparency

and collaborative objectives the

school is hoping to achieve.

The design pays homage to the building’s

industrial legacy by retaining or restoring

most of the existing building materials such as

concrete flooring, steel frame windows, and

masonry walls. It is then modernized through

the application of acoustic ceiling treatments,

quality lighting and HVAC systems, flooring,

and furnishings. The industrial backdrop is

157

brightened with pops of color that are balanced

with warm maple woods throughout.

The main stair will become a canvas on which

the students can paint, draw, and apply their

own identities as a growing work of art coalesces

over the years; hinting to the graffiti

laden walls that mark the building’s existing

condition.

An addition was placed on the Northwest

corner of the building in order to exaggerate

the panoramic angle of the corner that becomes

the school’s main entrance. The glass

extrusion is patterned in the same geometric

ratio as the steel windows that cover the

remaining elevations, giving clarity to form

while also providing a unique identifier to

the school building. This addition makes the

entryway large, light-filled, and inviting both

when approaching the building and once

inside.

The floor plans all have easy and direct access

to outdoor learning terraces in order to

diversify curriculum and provide restorative

areas to be outside. The largest outdoor area

is found on the rooftop playscape where

children can enjoy a variety of play structures

and recreational activities. In order to allow

for the clearance to exit the building without

losing precious square footage for playing,

the rooftop is extruded upwards and rolled

into one undulating surface on which the

students can run and play on. At the top of

the roof is a large built-in skylight that acts

as a porthole for the students to peek into the

heart of the school, and also penetrates an

abundance of natural light right through the

center of the building. The rods that suspend

the stairs from the top can then convert into

vertical gardens that add a touch of greenery

to the environment.

158

159

PROCESS SKETCHES

160

161

TRADITIONAL DESIGN

CATALOG

SICK BUILDINGS

RESTRICTIVE OUTDOOR ACCESS

DOUBLE-LOADED CORRIDORS

LACK OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES

SECURITY

LONG TERM

DAILY

UNINVITING ENTRY

CELLS & BELLS FURNISHINGS UNALTERABLE

TEACHER-CENTRIC

162

163

Gesture models from early design stages

164

165

OPEN LEARNING

ACOUSTICALLY PRIVATE

SUPPORT

1

Traditional school

corridor

2

Flip it on its head

3

Arrive at gesture

The floor plan is largely organized into 3 sections: (1) Support programs such as kitchenettes, administrative

offices and restrooms (2) Open learning zones for large group and interdisciplinary work and (3)

acoustically private zones for small group or 1:1 based learning.

166

167

WEST ELEVATION

168

169

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

170

171

ROOFTOP PLAN

172

173

AXONOMETRIC

174

175

176

177

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Endnotes

1 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “Public Education Funding Inequity in an Era of Increasing Concentration of Poverty and Resegregation”.

United States: Briefing Report for U.S. Government. 2018. https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/2018-01-10-Education-Inequity.pdf

2 United States General Accounting Office. “School Facilities: America’s Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century Learning” April,

1995 https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221084.pdf

3 United States General Accounting Office. “School Facilities: America’s Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century Learning” April,

1995 https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221084.pdf

4 Rankin, Kenrya. 2018. “REPORT: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Challenges Congress to Tackle Inequity in America’s Schools.” Text.

Colorlines. January 11, 2018. https://www.colorlines.com/articles/report-us-commission-civil-rights-challenges-congress-tackle-inequity-americas-schools.

5 U.S Department of Education, “2013-14 Civil Rights Data Collection: A First Look,” 2016, 1–13.

6 Shedd, Carla. Unequal City: Race, Schools, and Perceptions of Injustice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

7 Groen, Mark (2008). “The Whig Party and the Rise of Common Schools, 1837–1854”. American Educational History Journal. 35(1/2):

251–260.

8 Lumen, “Educational Reform: The Example of Horace Mann | Education, Society, & the K-12 Learner,” accessed May 17, 2019,

9 Lindsay Baker, “A History of School Design and Its Indoor Environmental Standards, 1900 to Today,” 2012, 1–30.

10 Anya Kamenetz, “Century-Old Decisions That Impact Children Every Day,” NPR.org, 2018, https://www.npr.org/sections/

ed/2018/06/09/611079188/century-old-decisions-that-impact-children-every-day.

11 Baker, “A History of School Design and Its Indoor Environmental Standards, 1900 to Today.”

12 Nair, Prakash. 2014. Blueprint for Tomorrow: Redesigning Schools for Student-Centered Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education

Press.

13 United States General Accounting Office.

14 United States General Accounting Office.

15 Mary Filardo, “State of Our Schools: America’s K-12 Facilities,” 2016, http://www.21csf.org/best-home/docuploads/pub/331_StateofOurSchools2016.pdf.

16 Brian J. Donnelly, Kristina Vidal. “Commercial Conversion”. May, 2018. http://pe.ifmmdev.com/white_papers

17 School Planning & Management, “School Costs: Did You Know...,” School Planning & Management, 2015, https://webspm.com/articles/2015/07/01/school-costs.aspx.

18 Council of Educational Facility Planners International, “Creating Connections-Guide for Educational Facility Planning,” 2002, https://creatingconnections.a4le.org/index.html#Contents.

19 Brian J. Donnelly, Kristina Vidal. “Commercial Conversion”. May, 2018. http://pe.ifmmdev.com/white_papers

20 Eric Klinenberg, Palaces for the People (Crown, New York, 2018), https://books.google.com/books/about/_.html?id=icZoDwAAQBAJ.

21 dRRM, “DURA,” 2004, http://drmm.co.uk/projects/view.php?p=dura.

22 Chitra Ramaswamy, “Is Your Child Sitting Uncomfortably? Then We’ll Begin,” The Guardian, April 19, 2015, sec. Life and style, https://

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/apr/19/children-bad-backs-uncomfortable-school-chairs-campaign.

23 “Children in Deficient School Buildings.” 2017. Text. Cornell Research. March 2, 2017. https://research.cornell.edu/news-features/children-deficient-school-buildings.

24 Rosan Bosch, “Vittra Telefonplan,” ArchDaily, 2011, http://www.archdaily.com/202358/vittra-telefonplan-rosan-bosch/.

25 Great Britain, and Department for Education and Skills. 2006. Schools for the Future: Designing School Grounds. London: The Stationery

Office.

26 Debbie Alexander and Laurie Lewis, “Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 2012-13,” 2014, 61.

27 “Wish School / Grupo Garoa.” 2018. ArchDaily. March 28, 2018. https://www.archdaily.com/891464/wish-school-grupo-garoa.

28 Ellen Larson Vaughan, “Elementary School | WBDG - Whole Building Design Guide,” 2017, https://www.wbdg.org/building-types/education-facilities/elementary-school.

178

179

Vaughan.

29 Ellen Larson Vaughan, “Elementary School | WBDG - Whole Building Design Guide,” 2017, https://www.wbdg.org/

building-types/education-facilities/elementary-school.

Vaughan.

30 DLR Group, “Marysville Getchell Campus,” February 4, 2019, http://www.dlrgroup.com/work/marysville-getchellhigh-school/.

31 Takaharu Tezuka, The Best Kindergarten You’ve Ever Seen, 2014, https://www.ted.com/talks/takaharu_tezuka_the_

best_kindergarten_you_ve_ever_seen.

32 India Block, “Tokyo Kindergarten by Tezuka Architects Lets Children Run Free on the Roof,” Dezeen, 2017, https://www.

dezeen.com/2017/10/02/fuji-kindergarten-tokyo-tezuka-architects-oval-roof-deck-playground/.

33 “Tezuka Architects’ Fuji Kindergarten Wins 2017 Moriyama RAIC International Prize.” 2017. ArchDaily. September 20,

2017. http://www.archdaily.com/880027/tezuka-architects-fuji-kindergarten-wins-2017-moriyama-raic-international-prize.

34 Broekhuizen, Dolf, Ton Verstegen, Paul Groenendijk, Like Bijlsma, and Eireen Schreurs. 2009. Contemporary Dutch

School Architecture. nai010.

35 Kendall, Paul. 2010. “The Future of Schools,” May 4, 2010, sec. Culture. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/7658278/The-future-of-schools.html.

36 “Kingsdale School Transformation – DRMM.” n.d. Accessed February 2, 2019. http://drmm.co.uk/projects/view.

php?p=kingsdale-school-transformation.

37 Erin Millar, “No Classrooms and Lots of Technology: A Danish School’s Approach,” 2013, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-competes/no-classrooms-and-lots-of-technology-a-danish-schools-approach/

article12688441/.

38 Arkitema Architects, “HELLERUP SKOLE,” 2011, https://arkitema.com/da/arkitektur/laering/hellerup-skole.

39 Heschong, Lisa, Roger L. Wright, and Stasia Okura. 2002. “Daylighting Impacts on Human Performance in School.”

Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society 31 (2): 101

40 US EPA, OAR. 2014. “Take Action to Improve Indoor Air Quality in Schools.” Overviews and Factsheets. US EPA. November

20, 2014. https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/take-action-improve-indoor-air-quality-schools.

41 Schneider, Mark. n.d. “Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?,” 24, P.3.

42 Shaughnessy, R. J., Haverinen‐Shaughnessy, U. , Nevalainen, A. and Moschandreas, D. (2006), A preliminary study on

the association between ventilation rates in classrooms and student performance. Indoor Air, 16: 465-468. doi:10.1111/j.1600-

0668.2006.00440.x

43 CDC, “Most Recent Asthma Data,” 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_data.htm.

44 Sumedha M. Joshi, “The Sick Building Syndrome,” Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 12, no. 2

(August 2008): 61–64, https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5278.43262.

45 Shaughnessy, R.J., et al. 2006. A preliminary study on the association between ventilation rates in classrooms and student

performance. Indoor Air 16(6): 465-468

46 Shaughnessy, et al

47 Schneider, Mark. n.d. “Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?,” 24, P.3.

48 Roy, Nelson, Ray M. Merrill, Susan Thibeault, Rahul A. Parsa, Steven D. Gray, and Elaine M. Smith. 2004. “Prevalence of

Voice Disorders in Teachers and the General Population.” Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research 47 (2): 281–93.

49 Ewart A Wetherill, “Classroom Design for Good Hearing,” 2018, http://www.quietclassrooms.org/library/goodhearing.html.

50 The Children’s Plan, “Delivering Sustainable Communities through Sustainable Schools,” 2004, https://dera.ioe.

ac.uk/9324/1/DCSF-00690-2009.pdf.

51 Xcel Energy, “Managing Energy Costs in Schools,” 2007, https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Marketing/

Managing-Energy-Costs-Schools.pdf.

52 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, “A Pathway to Zero Energy Schools,” Energy.gov, 2018, https://www.

energy.gov/eere/articles/pathway-zero-energy-schools.

53 Roxanne Squires, “Perkins Eastman Designed School Earns LEED Platinum,” School Construction News (blog), 2018, http://

schoolconstructionnews.com/2018/08/21/perkins-eastman-designed-school-earns-leed-platinum/.

54 Perkins Eastman, “Martin Luther King Junior School,” 2017, http://www.perkinseastman.com/project_3412039_martin_luther_king_junior_school.

55 Safe Routes to School, “SRTS Guide: The Decline of Walking and Bicycling,” 2018, http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_walking_and_bicycling.cfm.

56 Pew Research Center, “How Working Parents Share Parenting and Household Responsibilities | Pew Research Center,” 2015,

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/11/04/raising-kids-and-running-a-household-how-working-parents-share-the-load/.

57 Cicilline, David N. “Providence Tomorrow Olneyville, Smith Hill, Valley Neighborhood Plan” http://www.gcpvd.org/images/

reports/2009-07-providence-tomorrow-olneyville-smith-hill-valley-neigh-borhood-plan.pdf p. 10

58 Cicilline and Deller.

59 Cicilline and Deller.

60 National Assessment of Educational Progress, “Nations Report Card,” 2018, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

61 Rhode Island Department of Education, “Report Card: Providence,” 2018, https://reportcard.ride.ri.gov/DistrictAssessments?DistCode=28.

62 Providence Schools, “School Improvement Plans,” 2017, http://www.providenceschools.org/site/default.aspx?Domain-

ID=929.

63 RI-CAN, “Reimaging Education for a Reimagined Rhode Island,” 2016, https://ri-can.org/wp-content/uploads/

sites/12/2016/12/Reimagine-RI-Report.pdf.

64 Rhode Island Building Authority, “State of Rhode Island Schoolhouses,” 2017, http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/

Documents/Funding-and-Finance-Wise-Investments/SchoolBuildingAuthority/RIDE-Facility-Condition-Report2017_FINAL.PDF.

65 Rhode Island Building Authority.

IMAGE CREDITS

2.1 Photo of school corridor. Digital image. Glamox https://glamox.com/uk/solutions/school-corridors-and-circulationa-areas

2.2 Photo of school corridor. Getty images

2.3-2.5 Digital images of school proposal. Digital images. dRMM. http://drmm.co.uk/

2.6 standard school desk and chair. Digital image. Futurity. https://www.futurity.org/bacteria-fungi-kids-school-desks-1783552/

2.7-2.10 35mm film images captured and published by author

2.11-2.16 Photos of Telefonplan school. Digital images. RosanBosch https://rosanbosch.com/en/project/vittra-school-telefonplan

2.17 Boycott, ’63. n.d. “’63 Boycott. http://63boycott.kartemquin.com.

2.18 Classroom trailer. ModularClassrooms. http://www.modularclassrooms.org/sprout-spaces-vs-cheap-classroom-trailers/

2.19-2.25 Wish School case study. Pedro Napolitano Prata. https://www.archdaily.com/891464/wish-school-grupo-garoa

2.26 Community design workshop. CatComm. http://catcomm.org/city-as-play/

2.27-2.30 Marysville High School. DLR Group. https://www.archdaily.com/155917/marysville-getchell-high-school-dlr-group

2.31-2.33 Fuji Kindergarten. Tezuka Architects. http://www.tezuka-arch.com/english/works/education/fujiyochien/

2.34 Photo capture and provided by author

2.35-2.38 Wide School Buytenwech. Frencken Scholl Architects. http://www.frenckenscholl.nl/projecten/brede-school-buytenwech

2.39 Students passing through metal detector. Grace Beahm Alford. Post and Courier. https://www.postandcourier.com/news/metaldetectors-bag-checks-among-safety-measures-used-at-south/article_29dff79e-1818-11e8-be9b-9bcde3faffd1.html

180

181

2.40 Photo of students going through metal detector. Digital image. Flickr/Miguel Mendoza. https://www.ewa.org/blog-latino-edbeat/petition-metal-detectors-treat-black-latino-students-criminals

2.41-2.44 Kingsdale School case study. Digital images. dRMM architects. http://drmm.co.uk/projects/view.php?p=kingsdale-school-transformation

2.45-2.48 Hellerup school case study. Digital images. Arkitema. https://arkitema.com/da/arkitektur/laering/hellerup-skole

2.49-2.54 MLK junior school. Perkins Eastman. http://www.perkinseastman.com/project_3412039_martin_luther_king_junior_school

______________

3.1 Historic newspaper clipping. Digital scan. RI Historic Preservation Society. http://www.preservation.ri.gov/pdfs_zips_downloads/

survey_pdfs/prov_smithhill.pdf

3.2 Smith Hill historic map. Henry F. Walling. http://www.preservation.ri.gov/pdfs_zips_downloads/survey_pdfs/prov_smithhill.pdf

3.3 Workers dwellings in smith hill. Elizabeth S. Warren. http://www.preservation.ri.gov/pdfs_zips_downloads/survey_pdfs/prov_

smithhill.pdf

3.4 Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company. Digitized print. The Foundry. https://onerhodeislandfamily.com/2013/06/16/viewsof-1881-providence/

3.5 The Foundry. GrowsmartRI. http://www.growsmartri.org/smart-growth-awards/2016-smart-growth-awards/

3.6 Nicholson File Company. Digitized print. https://onerhodeislandfamily.com/2013/06/16/views-of-1881-providence/

3.7 The Wurks Arts Collective. http://www.thewurks.com/

3.8 U.S. rubber factory. Digitized print. https://onerhodeislandfamily.com/2013/06/16/views-of-1881-providence/

3.9 Waterfire arts center. Digital image. https://www.morins.com/the-waterfire-arts-center

3.10 map of Woonasquatucket vision plan. City of Providence. https://www.providenceri.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/BF-

AWP-project-area-map_for-web_v2_web_small-1.jpg

3.11 student demographics. Image courtesy of education inequality index. https://www.educationequalityindex.org/city-data/cities/#view=eei_scores&sort=undefined&order=asc&state=Rhode%20Island

182

183

Ending Disciplinary Architecture in America's Public Schools

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?