Date post: | 29-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | richard-klopp |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
ACT I ACT II ACT III
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE IDBE 15
CASE STUDY RICHARD KLOPP
JUNE 2009
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
Foreword
This work was written in partial fulfillment of the Interdisciplinary Design for the Built
Environment (IDBE) program requirements at the University of Cambridge. The
principal aims of the IDBE program as stated in the course handbook are:
… to give its graduates a broad strategic understanding of the social,
economic and environmental context of design, and the current challenges
and opportunities facing the production of the built environment… and
… to help students from different disciplines to work effectively together,
harnessing their knowledge and expertise in the design of a product that
reflects their joint capabilities.
The purpose of the case study is to reflect on the decisions and actions of the design
team for a recent project in which the author was a key participant. It is an opportunity to
critically analyse the process and its outcomes, but most importantly, to develop the
reflexive skills that will become a valuable feedback mechanism for self-improvement
and teamwork in the future.
About the author:
Richard Klopp is an architect and educator living in Montréal, Canada. His professional
experience of 15 years spans a wide range of project types and cultural contexts. He is
part-time faculty member at McGill University and Vanier College, where he teaches
courses in building construction and passive, low-energy design. He actively volunteers
on a number of non-profit, project-based initiatives to improve the urban environment
and promote eco-responsible building practices. With the support of the Canada Green
Building Council, he curated the exhibition entitled "How to Build post-Kyoto" - an official
parallel event to the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2005.
1
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
Introduction
Primary schools are one of the most important social constructs and formative physical
environments in our lives, which we revisit with each new generation. This case study
tells the story of a dilapidated urban schoolyard in Montreal and how it was transformed
through a series of community-initiated interventions, engaging ever-broader stakeholder
participation in the process. It is a community-building project in both the social and
physical sense of the term. It is also an educational experiment in interdisciplinary
collaboration that attempts to dissolve the silos that typically isolate academia, industry,
culture, and community life.
Because it involves one the fundamental building blocks of society and is readily
transferable as a project, this case study should find relevance with a wide range of
readers, particularly those interested in the following questions:
• What motivates and empowers citizens to make positive changes to their
built environment, and what barriers do they confront in the process?
• What conditions and possible convergence of interests are required to
sustain a multi-stakeholder collaboration, in which community-building is
the prime motivator, not profit?
• What role can community service play in design education, and
alternatively, what role can design education play in community service?
• How can projects be conceived as open-ended processes that continue
to transform, engage, and add value over time?
• What are the socio-cultural, economic, and ecological benefits of
improving the quality of public space?
Two parallel streams of thought are presented in the main body of this case study. The
first stream of thought is a narrative or factual account of events that offers the relevant
context required to properly understand the second stream of thought, which is a
reflective analysis of the processes, outcomes, and roles of the author in the project.
The format, graphic design and typography of the document play an important role in
separating these two thought processes.
2
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
The narrative is structured using the written form of a play, composed of three acts and
an epilogue. The reflective analysis will take the form of notes in the right hand margin.
To give a graphic identity to each of the streams of thought, a different font type was
chosen for each: courier for the narrative and a cursive font for the reflective analysis. A
third font type is used for the introduction, conclusion and captions.
The theatrical play is a good analogy for a project - it has a setting, actors, an audience,
a plot - and we can learn a great deal from the interrelationships of these elements. In a
building project, we call these elements site, stakeholders, community of users, and
schedule. Here the primary setting is a public elementary school and its surrounding
community in Montréal, but there are also a number of secondary sites including: a
school of architecture design studio, a precast concrete plant, and a mosaic school.
The storyline involves a series of nested subplots (or secondary projects) that are each
related but also each an entity unto itself, like the pieces of a Russian doll [FIGURE 1].
ACT I describes a schoolyard landscape project; ACT II, a piece of urban furniture
integrated in the schoolyard; and ACT III, a mosaic work embedded in the urban
furniture. The EPILOGUE briefly introduces a sequel project currently underway at
another schoolyard, which demonstrates the transferability of the project and process.
This case study documents project events and offers reflections on the outcomes and
decisions made. While I was personally involved throughout the process, my role and
motivations at each stage changed significantly: from client advisor to project manager
to design team leader and at times even a tradesman. These multiple project roles were
overlapping and often converging with my day-to-day practice and responsibilities as an
architect, university lecturer, and parent.
While the narrative is central to understanding the case study, it is the author’s notes
provided in margins that are of greatest value to a reader interested in reflective and
interdisciplinary practice. The conclusions are drawn almost exclusively from this
analytical stream of thought.
3
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 1 RUSSIAN DOLLS METAPHOR FOR NESTED PROJECTS
FIGURE 2 LOCATION OF ELC SCHOOL MONTRÉAL, CANADA
4
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT I: THE SCHOOLYARD PROJECT
ACT I: SETTING
École Lambert-Closse (referred to as ELC School
in this document) is a francophone primary school
in the vibrant and multiethnic Mile End district
of Montréal. It is bounded by St-Urbain, Bernard,
and Waverly streets [FIGURE 2].
Like many aging schools in Montréal, the ongoing
maintenance of the ELC schoolyard had not been
prioritized by the local school board (CSDM) and
as a consequence the exterior environment was in
a chronic state of disrepair. Despite the regular
complaints of pupils, parents, and staff, the
situation was tolerated for many years.1
And there was little hope of change in the near
future. The ELC School had lost its former
special funding status for economically depressed
neighbourhoods and as a result was struggling to
maintain the quality and range of it existing
programs and services, let alone invest in any
non-life-threatening capital projects.
While gentrification of the surrounding community
was the cause of funding cuts to the school, it
would also bring many of the leaders and pool of
talent and professional skill required to take on
the project of revitalizing the ELC schoolyard.
ACT I recounts how this group of dedicated
parents carried out the project and establishes
the context for ACT II and ACT III.
Notes:
1 My reaction after visiting the school
for the first time (at an open house
event for parents) was shock and
outrage. How could a society with
such abundant wealth and resources,
rated at the top of the UN Human
Development Index, choose not to
invest in the environments where its
children will be spending their
formative years? What message does
this lack of care send to the children
that attend the school and to the
community they live in?
Upon sharing my feelings with other
parents and members of the school
staff, I realized that I was not alone.
Yet there was a sense of
powerlessness to affect the necessary
change at the local, institutional, or
political levels. In part, the situation
was tolerated because it was not an
isolated case: many urban schools
were suffering equally deplorable
conditions.
5
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 3 ELC SCHOOLYARD SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 4 ELC SCHOOL INTERIOR ARTWORK EMBELLISHES WALLS
6
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
Author notes: Reflection: examine reasons why? due to resistance on the part of the School Board to hand over what it considered its responsibility, perhaps a certain lack of confidence in the proposed plan and ability of the parents to realise it, and lack of funding. What is the right mix of talent to succeed?
ACT I: PRINCIPAL ROLES AND ACTORS
NARRATOR: Richard Klopp, parent and member of the
ELC Schoolyard Committee project management team
as professional advisor and volunteer.
ELC SCHOOLYARD COMMITTEE: promoter2 and project
management team comprised of parents, school
staff and community representatives.
CLIENT GROUP:
CSDM (CITY OF MONTREAL SCHOOL BOARD): owner
ELC SCHOOL STUDENTS AND STAFF: primary user
MILE END COMMUNITY: secondary user
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: NIP Paysage
GENERAL CONTRACTOR: EBI inc
PROJECT SPONSORS/SUPPORTERS
ACT I: PLOT
As early as 2001, a group of parents and teachers
at ELC School had formed a committee to address
growing concerns relating to the dilapidated
condition of the schoolyard and inaction on the
part of the CSDM to improve the situation. The
schoolyard was essentially a large empty lot of
cracked and poorly drained pavement bounded by a
chain link fence. The only visible signs defining
it as a schoolyard were the field markings (which
were barely visible), a few metal structures for
attaching sports equipment, and the presence of
the children [FIGURE 3]. This contrasts greatly
with the vibrant interior of the school that is
embellished with student art [FIGURE 4].
Notes:
2 Reflecting on the motivations of the
volunteer parents promoting the
project: first and foremost was their
interest in seeing the schoolyard
project completed as soon as possible
so that their own children would
benefit for at least part of their seven
years at the K-6 school (as one might
expect, the most engaged volunteers
had children in early grades.) Other
motivators included the desire to
invest in the local community; the
opportunity to collaborate and build
relationships; the sense of
empowerment associated with taking
on a difficult challenge; and the
anticipated satisfaction of achieving
a unique project of significant benefit
to the community.
My own decision to enroll my son at
the school rather than look elsewhere
was influenced by all of these
motivations, but at the beginning I
struggled with the basic question:
why did parents have to do what
seemed to be the work of the school
board and Ministry of Education.
Was it not a clear sign of failure of a
public institution if the citizens it is
intended to serve need to organize
themselves and volunteer their time,
energy, and resources to ensure its
basic services.
Once beyond the victimizing and
blaming – when we began taking
charge of the project – some other
motivating benefits became apparent:
namely, the abundant opportunities
to personalized the project to the
needs of the local school and
community, rather than accept a
generic or institutionally generated
plan.
7
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 5 TIMELINE ACT I SCHOOLYARD PROJECT
8
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
Notes:
3 At the time, it appeared as though
the CSDM did not want the
Schoolyard committee meddling in
their affairs. In retrospect, their
resistance may have been due to a
lack of confidence in the committee’s
ability to generate the necessary
funding and carry out the work in a
professional manner.
4 The mix of professions included: a
graphic designer, the president of a
lobby group for cyclists, a lawyer
with political aspirations, a
community activist, a local artist, an
employee of Radio-Canada and
myself, an architect and part-time
university lecturer.
5 The summary document proved to be
an invaluable tool for team building,
sponsorship, coordination, and
project approvals. One cannot
overstate the importance of involving
a good writer and graphic designer in
its production as the content and
presentation quality of the document
reflect the professionalism and
ambition of the project team.
Other organisations have used our
document as a template for similar
initiatives and have commented on
some of its defining characteristics,
which include: a clear definition of
purpose, scope, context and actors;
comprehensive, concise, and
transparent writing; visually
engaging graphical layout; and
regularly updated information.
ACT I: PLOT (cont)
The main preoccupations of the ELC Schoolyard
Committee were the unsafe playing surfaces; lack
of green space, shade, and lighting; and traffic
pollution from St-Urbain Street.
After several years of community consultations,
project definition, and consensus building, the
project faltered and stalled, in large part due
to the lack of support by the school board3.
* * *
A new schoolyard committee was formed in 2005: it
included parents from the former committee, new
parents to the school and some key personnel
within the school administration. These new
parents reenergized the volunteer group with a
broad set of professional and leadership skills4
and a fresh perspective. Their first goal was to
make publicly accessible the work of the previous
committee by publishing a summary document that
clearly described the context, scope, and vision
for the project5. Refer to the project timeline
of key events [FIGURE 5].
This document was distributed to all project and
community stakeholders and a number of potential
partners for letters of support. Letters of
support were appended to the document to build
credibility and momentum for the cause.
The next step was to develop a concept and set a
fundraising target, so that project stakeholders
and potential sponsors would have the necessary
information about the project.
9
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 6 SITE PLAN, CONCEPT STAGE SOURCE: NIP PAYSAGE
FIGURE 7 PERSPECTIVE, CONCEPT STAGE SOURCE: NIP PAYSAGE
10
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
Notes:
6 Involving professionals that were
known to the various planning and
regulatory bodies was key to gaining
credibility. The earlier plan presented
to the CSDM was prepared pro bono
by a landscape contractor, who was
not familiar with their protocol and
approval processes.
7 Choosing a suitable professional
partner with the right balance of
experience, talent, chemistry and fees
usually entails a certain degree of
compromise. In this case, there was
nearly a perfect match. NIP Paysage
is a local firm of young landscape
architects that specialize in small-
scale community and cultural
projects. Although primarily renown
for their imaginative installations at
art and garden festivals, they also
have a considerable portfolio of
schoolyard and playground projects.
Being accustomed to working on
two-stage, funding-dependent
projects, they were very accom-
modating of the needs of a non-profit
community organisation. Their offer
of services was of exemplary quality,
clearly laying out with graphic flair
their relevant experience, grasp of the
project, a tentative schedule, list of
deliverables and professional fees.
8 Parent activities at the school
typically take the form of individual
or group meetings for information
exchange with teachers or the
administration - usually centred on
the children’s needs and development.
What defined the success of this
event was that it provided a much-
needed space for social interaction
between parents. The event would
nourish and inspire all future
fundraising activities.
ACT I: PLOT (cont)
To enter into a contractual agreement concerning
school property required professional design
services and approval of the CSDM. Contrary to
the experience of the first schoolyard committee,
the CSDM was now more open toward community
partnerships in general and those involving
schoolyard projects in particular6. There was
even new funding available from the Ministry of
Education and the City of Montreal for upgrading
sports facilities, which included school grounds.
With the support-in-principle of the CSDM, three
landscape architects were invited to submit
offers of services. NIP Paysage was the firm
commissioned7 to prepare concept drawings
[FIGURES 6 & 7] and an estimate. Once added to
the project summary, it formed a comprehensive
document for grant agencies and private sponsors.
In parallel with concept development, a series of
fundraising events was initiated that quickly
garnered the attention and support of the school,
community, local politicians and the media. The
aim of the first event, an informal spaghetti
dinner [FIGURE 8], was to introduce the project
to the entire school community and begin building
a network of support. Tickets were sold out for
the event and the gymnasium was filled to
capacity with the borough mayor and other
community representatives in attendance. There
was a very good ambiance. In fact, dinner
conversation was so lively that it was difficult
to hear any of the presentations. Although very
little information was transmitted to the
audience, the positive community spirit and sense
of social cohesion experienced that evening would
make it a defining moment in the project8.
11
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 8 FUNDRAISING EVENT SPAGHETTI DINNER
FIGURE 9 FUNDRAISING AND MEDIA EVENT ROADSWORTH INSTALLATION
12
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
Notes:
9 There was a shared sentiment that
we were building more than a
schoolyard and that even if we never
achieved our fundraising target, our
time was not wasted.
10Roadsworth is the pseudonym of a
controversial artist, who for 3 years
transformed common road marking in
Montreal into what many would
consider legitimate works of public
art. When he was finally uncovered
and apprehended, it created a public
debate, and in the end, rather than
receive a criminal sentence, he was
order to pay a nominal fine and to
serve 40 hours of community service.
His work was strangely symbolic of
and resonant with our efforts in that
it sought to humanise or give a poetic
dimension to institutional space.
ACT I: PLOT (cont)
The fundraising activities would continue for
over a year and although there were times that
the progress seemed too slow or the target
unattainable, there was rarely a sense of
drudgery for those involved because the process
itself was highly prioritized to create
opportunities for personal growth, participation,
group learning, cultural expression, and
community engagement.9
One good example is the schoolyard Bazaar held in
the spring of 2006, where volunteers sold
unwanted household items donated by parents and
school members. To publicize the event, the
graffiti artist Roadsworth10 was invited to
embellish the schoolyard with one of his famous
stencil works live - and legally, for a change.
In fact, his work contributed to a mandatory
community service sentence he received. While the
proceeds of the sales and refreshments were
modest, the art event attracted the local press,
temporarily transformed the schoolyard and became
a source of pride for the school [FIGURE 9].
Other fundraising activities that offered a broad
range of opportunities for engagement, learning
and creativity, included:
- A school-wide student competition to
collect the largest number of recyclable containers for refund;
- The sale of reusable cloth shopping bags,
proudly displaying the project logo, at the school and in local shops [FIGURE 10];
- A St-Valentine’s Day masquerade ball; and
- A semi-formal cocktail and silent auction
of donated student artwork [FIGURE 10].
13
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 10 FUNDRAISING INITIATIVES GRAPHIC SUPPORT
FIGURE 11 CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS SOURCE: NIP PAYSAGE
14
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
Notes:
11The sources of project funding can be
broken down as follows:
12% Federal programs
20% Provincial programs
40% CSDM and Municipal funding
15% Private foundations/corporate
13% ELC Schoolyard committee
12Creating an identity for a project
requires printed artefacts and a
recognisable figurehead. Although
they work in different modes, both
can be mutually reinforcing and serve
to communicate project information
in a clear and consistent manner.
Because they represent not only the
project, but also the collective
thoughts, aspirations, and even
reputations of the project team, they
hold or embody the power that will
in large part determine the success or
failure of the project.
ACT I: PLOT (cont)
Note that while these activities were not major
revenue generators in themselves (accounting for
less than 15% of the total funds raised), they
were essential in order to build support and
credibility with funding agencies, many of which
required evidence of in-kind commitments11.
There were about a dozen active members of the
Schoolyard committee and while work was shared
and delegated to volunteers, two key roles
emerged that required a significantly higher
level of engagement: 1) a graphic designer and
2) a project spokesperson12. The graphic designer
gave the project an identity and provided the
graphic support for all internal and external
communication [FIGURE 10]. The spokesperson was
the main point of contact for the committee,
project stakeholders, sponsors, and the media.
By early 2007, committee members were showing
signs of impatience and a decision was made to
schedule construction for the summer, prior to
the school’s fall reopening. The project budget
was revised to match the anticipated funding
level of approximately $150,000. Design changes
and contingency plans were reviewed with the
landscape architects, which involved breaking out
certain items from the main scope of work, namely
lighting and outdoor furniture [ACT II].
By the beginning of summer, all the funding was
in place and the contract documents were issued
to the CSDM, who handled the tendering process
and construction contract. Construction began in
July 2007 and was completed over a 4-week period
ending in late August [FIGURE 11].
15
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 12 ELC SCHOOLYARD IN USE RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY
16
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT I: PLOT (cont) The transformation of the schoolyard was
dramatic. The landscape architects demonstrated
their skill at making very effective use of a
modest budget, most of which went to repaving the
hard surfaces. They were able to create a visual
charged and playful landscape out of a relatively
empty space by adding some topography and a few
goal posts, extending the existing zones of
planting into the schoolyard, carefully
coordinating materials and making abundant use of
painted surfaces. The rubber-surfaced hill in
particular is an endless source of amusement for
the children at all times of the year.
The inauguration of the schoolyard provided an
opportunity for all those that had contributed to
the project to experience the new space in use.
At the same event, a ribbon-cutting ceremony was
conducted by the principal users of the space -
the schoolchildren - in a symbolic gesture of
project transfer and reception [FIGURE 12].
At the end of the project, the remaining project
funds and an unexpected grant were allocated to
several related initiatives, including the
projects described in ACT II and ACT III, a
lighting proposal, and a maintenance program13.
Notes:
13With the very heavy use of the
schoolyard, both during school hours
and after when it is open to the
community, repairs and ongoing
maintenance became pressing issues
almost immediately. No funds were
initially budgeted for maintenance
work, but fortunately the project
ended with a surplus. This
significant oversight in budgeting
was balanced by another oversight
involving the momentum of
community involvement. No one had
anticipated the void that would be
felt by the project team volunteers as
project activities suddenly ceased.
Many were pleased to join a new
committee set up to manage the
ongoing projects and maintenance
work as well as to continue some of
the popular fundraising events.
17
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 13 TIMELINE ACT II BENCH PROJECT
18
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT II – THE BENCH PROJECT
ACT II: SETTING
This project involves a student design-build
competition for new precast concrete furniture.
The project unfolds at McGill University School
of Architecture (McGill SOA), before moving to
Groupe Tremca precast concrete plant, where the
winning design was fabricated, and then on to the
ELC schoolyard, where the work was installed as a
permanent feature of the built landscape.
The project was born out of a value engineering
discussion for the ELC schoolyard in early 2007 -
refer to the ACT II timeline [FIGURE 13]. At the
time, not all the funding was committed, and
contingency plans were being evaluated so that
the landscape architect could proceed with the
construction documents phase. The concept design
proposed a series of benches in a new zone of
planting at the western edge of the schoolyard
site. The benches were a generic economy model
and thus a prime target for cost-savings as they
could easily be added at a later date14.
The idea of setting up a design-build competition
for the benches suddenly appeared to me as a
point of convergence15 and mutually beneficial
solution to two distinct problems, namely:
1) to find an alternative to a generic design solution dictated by budgetary and time constraints; and
2) to offer a real-life design opportunity of
appropriate scale and relevance to a class of architecture students
16.
In this case, each collaborating party had what
the other needed. The only missing party was an
Notes: 14Interestingly, it was not the cost-
savings potential, but rather the generic quality of the benches that opened a discussion of alternatives that would eventually lead to the design-build initiative. Standard park benches were viewed as detracting from the creative landscape being proposed. Most of the ELC Schoolyard committee members would even have preferred stone boulders as an alternative.
15This convergence would not have
“appeared” without a willingness to
go beyond the normal trajectories and
typical silos defining professional
work, academia, community
involvement, and family life.
16As a course lecturer at McGill School
of Architecture, I had for some time
been preoccupied with thoughts of
changing the teaching methods of a
technical course called Advanced
Construction from a theory and
lecture-based approach to a practice
and project-based initiative. I had
seen the heightened engagement and
positive learning results from
construction site visits and invited
specialists. For two years, I had even
integrated the course content in what
was know as the Comprehensive
Design Studio. The problem of using
design studio projects as means to
explore detailing and construction
issues is that they were missing the
interdisciplinary constraints, input
and coordination that are critical to
an understanding of construction.
Without being conscious of it, I was
in fact waiting for this opportunity
to collaborate with consultants and
building specialists on a small, value-
added, design-build project.
19
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 14 GROUPE TREMCA PLANT SITE VISIT WITH STUDENTS
FIGURE 15 DIAGRAM OF VALUE EXCHANGES BETWEEN PARTICIPANT GROUPS AND LIVE PROJECT
20
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT II: SETTING (cont)
industry partner that could provide technical
support and assure the delivery of a high quality
final product. The first company contacted was
Groupe Tremca, who was immediately receptive to
the initiative. The terms of agreement involved
an initial commitment to participate in the
competition phase and, depending on the quality
of the winning proposal(s), to extend their
commitment to the fabrication phase. A similar
non-binding agreement was made with ELC School17. T
The overall structure of relations is descibed in
the diagram on the facing page [FIGURE 13].
Needless to say, the benches were removed from
the construction contract. It remained to be seen
what proposals the students might come up with
and whether any would be realized.
ACT II: PRINCIPAL ROLES AND ACTORS
NARRATOR: Richard Klopp, design-build project
coordinator and course lecturer at McGill SOA.
MCGILL SOA: 37 architecture students in the
Advanced Construction course (M Arch program).
ELC SCHOOLYARD COMMITTEE: project beneficiary
offering the program, site, and some funding.
GROUPE TREMCA: industry sponsor offering
technical support for and fabrication of a
student bench design in precast concrete.
NIP PAYSAGE: professional advisor ensuring that
the student designs conform to safety regulations
and the overall landscape concept.
Notes:
17This two-stage, performance-based
agreement permitted each of the
stakeholders to enter into the new
relationship with little risk or
commitment. It also provided the
time necessary to build trust and to
demonstrate the potential value each
could offer the collaboration. There
was no money involved, but each
stakeholder had something of value
to exchange. The key to making the
relationship work was to maintain a
careful balance of stakeholder
interests. The motivations of the
main stakeholders created an
interesting relationship triangle. On
the supply side: ELC School provided
the site; McGill SOA students
provided design services; and Groupe
Tremca provided the product. On the
receiving side: ELC School received a
new schoolyard feature; McGill SOA
students received a valuable learning
experience and a portfolio work; and
Groupe Tremca was able to establish
a relationship with a class of future
clients. The work of the students
would also feature in their
promotional materials. In fact, the
following year, the street furniture
for a major public space commission
would be inspired by the winning
student design.
21
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 16 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: TROULOULOU
FIGURE 17 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: KOOB
FIGURE 18 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: RU-BANC
22
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT II: PLOT
On the first day of class, students in Advanced
Construction were immediately immersed in the
project18. The course outline introduced the
pedagogical objectives and set the stage for the
design-build competition as follows:
ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION is an exploration of the constructive or tectonic dimension of the architectural work. The principal focus of the course relates to the selection process and spatial organisation of materials, assemblies, and building systems and how these design decisions influence the architectonic expression, ambient qualities and environ-mental performance of a built space. This year, a design-build project has been set up to achieve the learning objectives of the course… …This initiative is a unique convergence of interests that brings together architecture students, industry partners, volunteer professionals, and a dedicated community group to collaborate on a construction project that will assist a local Montreal primary school to realize its aspirations for a revitalized schoolyard. The competition offers McGill architecture students a hands-on opportunity to engage in the design and construction of several urban furniture pieces, while at the same time fulfilling course objectives and the following learning activities:
- Meeting with client/consultants to define project design parameters;
- Learning about precast concrete, its potential and limitations;
- Exploring the potential formal and surface qualities of the material;
- Preparing a design proposal including shop drawings and scale model in plaster;
- Participating in technical reviews on issues relating to siting, structure, ergonomics, fabrication, finishes, cost, transport, and installation;
- Building the formwork and preparing technical specifications for the winning design(s).
Notes:
18Student reacted very positively to the
idea of participating in a real project.
For most it would be the first time
they would have the opportunity to
work directly with a client group,
contractor, and consultants, or to
realize a built work. There were a
number of well-known precedents for
this type of design-build project –
including Rural Studio, Freelab,
Ghost, and Solar Decathlon – which
had a certain cache in the eyes of the
students.
23
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 19 STUDENT TEAMS AND MIGRATION AFTER RESHUFFLING 9 PROPOSALS, 2 SELECTED FOR DEVELOPMENT
24
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT II: PLOT (cont)
The terms of agreement and motivations of the
project stakeholders were carefully explained and
students were reminded that no party was
obligated to continue beyond the design phase of
the project19. Students were aware that the
success or failure of the project depended on how
well they were able to understand and respond to
the often divergent interests and expectations of
the each of the stakeholder groups20.
During the design phase, students were organized
into teams of four [FIGURE 19]. The class was
split into concurrent briefing sessions: one half
going to visit the new ELC schoolyard, where they
met the landscape architect, school principal,
committee members and pupils; the other half
receiving a factory tour and technical briefing
by precast concrete company representatives
[FIGURE 14]. Students were encouraged to ask
questions and to challenge the scope and limits
of the competition brief21. Team members reunited
and shared their experiences. Minutes were taken
and, once validated by all project stakeholders,
they formed an addendum to the competition brief.
Students worked on their design submissions over
a period of six weeks. The competition brief
required each team to propose a single formwork
design for 1-3 precast concrete elements and to
precisely locate these elements on a site plan.
While students were encouraged to explore the
potential uses of a bench beyond its standard
definition of “an object for sitting on” and to
show these alternate uses in their perspectives,
they were also reminded that child-safety was of
paramount importance to the jury members22.
Notes:
19I was very frank with the students
regarding the experimental nature of
the project and the risk of it being
terminated if student performance
was not satisfactory.
20Negotiation and mediation skills are
critical to a designer and both require
effective listening. The student
challenge in this case was to strike a
balance in meeting the expectations
of all the project stakeholders, while
satisfying their own creative
impulses.
21The problem with competition briefs
is that they may exclude potential
solutions by the way in which they
frame or limit the problem.
22Our perception of danger and the
standard by which we measure child
safety has a great deal to do with
how we define or label the risk
elements. A ‘bench’ will not require
the same standard of safety as a
‘play structure’ despite the fact that
child will play on it. To avoid overly
constraining the project with safety
regulations, we were careful not to
refer to the bench as a ‘play
structure’ and to define its primary
use as a bench.
25
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 20 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: HAMMOCK
FIGURE 21 BENCH DESIGN PROPOSAL TEAM: TWIST & TURN
26
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT II: PLOT (cont)
Students were asked to demonstrate that their
proposals were buildable using a 1:10 scale model
of their formwork and to test the formwork by
producing a plaster cast with it. They were told
to design durable, self-supporting and stable
structures, requiring no foundations and to
clearly articulate the intended form and surface
qualities, considering fabrication limitations
and constraints. Finally, the designs were to
challenge the stereotype of concrete as a cold
and unwelcoming material23.
Each team was given 10 minutes to present their
proposal to a jury of project stakeholder group
representatives24. The former director of McGill
SOA, two pupils of ELC School, and a documentary
film crew also attended the event.
Projects were evaluated based on the requirements
previously mentioned and the following criteria:
- Appropriateness of the proposal within the
context of an existing landscape concept;
- Ability to engage children in play;
- Clarity and completeness of documentation;
- Material efficiency and easy of production.
Three projects were short-listed for selection:
Trouloulou [FIGURE 16], Hammock [FIGURE 20] and
Twist&Turn [FIGURE 21]. Despite the high quality
of all proposals [see also FIGURES 17-18], the
selection process was surprisingly easy, in part
due to the wide range of criteria and stakeholder
interests involved. Short-listed projects were
those that managed to avoid elimination by any
stakeholder group, and to inspire at least one
jury member to vigorously defend it25.
Notes:
23When I first proposed the design-
build project to the ELC schoolyard
committee, they were not very excited
about the use of concrete. Turning
the constraint into a design challenge
however, was a very successful way
to negotiate around a potential
conflict and incompatibility between
the stakeholders.
24Participation in the design jury and
the culture of a school of architecture
was an eye-opening experience for
most of the stakeholders. They
expressed amazement at the richness
and diversity of project work and the
high quality and thoroughness of the
graphic presentations – by far
exceeding their expectations. The two
pupils from ELC School were
awestruck by the creative
surroundings. Surprisingly, when
asked to comment, they seemed to
want to focus on adult issues like
safety, which in one case prompted
the witty response, “It is dangerous,
but fun!”
25Twist&Turn received first-prize: it
was not the most creative design,
although it did have an elegant
simplicity to it; it was not even the
best presented work; but from the
point of view of the jury, it was
clearly the most appropriate response
to the project constraints and most
suitable for the construction phase.
Once the jury arrived at the three
short-listed projects, which were all
considered acceptable to the ELC
School, the fabrication issues tended
to dominate the final selection.
27
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 22 PRODUCTION OF FORMWORK AND PRECAST CONCRETE ELEMENTS
FIGURE 23 SITE PREPARATION AND INSTALLATION
28
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT II: PLOT (cont)
Initially, there was a desire to select up to
three projects, produce the formwork and cast one
or two benches from each. The intent was to give
the maximum number of students the opportunity to
realize their proposals. The problem was that the
first-prize project Twist&Turn alone required
four modules and Groupe Tremca was not willing to
commit to more than this. After some discussion
with ELC School, Trouloulou was also selected to
advance to the design development stage in order
to evaluate the cost and complexity of having it
built by a team of volunteers26.
At this point, new teams and task groups were set
up [FIGURE 19] to complete the design development
of the two selected proposals27; to prepare
technical drawings and specifications; and in the
case of Twist&Turn, to construct the formwork
[FIGURE 22]. Students of the winning proposals
became team leaders responsible for ensuring
design intent, coordination, and approvals for
each of the three following task groups:
- Formwork and structure;
- Surface treatment and materiality; and
- Installation and site considerations.
An independent task group was responsible for
documenting and making publicly available the
student design proposals on a website.
In consultation with project stakeholders, each
student task group prepared a report for their
final course grade28. At the end of term, Groupe
Tremca organized the delivery of the formwork to
their production facilities.
Notes:
26 Trouloulou was the favoured design
of the ELC schoolchildren. It was
inspired by the most common precast
elements – slabs and pipe sections –
observed during the concrete plant
visit. Unfortunately, Groupe Tremca
did not appreciate the design to the
same degree as others: in part because
it was nothing out of the ordinary
for them, but as we later discovered,
it also involved some tricky quality
control and fabrication issues. These
issues were not clearly expressed, so
initially Groupe Tremca’s intentions
were misinterpreted.
27 By reshuffling the teams, students
could reinvest in the process, add
value to and share ownership for the
final work. For most students, this
was their first experience in project
management and a unique
opportunity to develop leadership,
coordination, and research skills – an
experience that is difficult to teach or
simulate in the classroom.
28The value of these reports was most
apparent several months after the
course ended, when information was
required to coordinated the mosaic or
the bench foundations.
29
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 24 INSTALLATION TEAM ON THE TWIST & TURN BENCH
FIGURE 25 FIRST CHILDREN ARRIVE AND DISCOVER THE BENCH
30
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT II: PLOT (cont)
Despite the best intentions, student interest and
availability waned dramatically after the course
ended29. It quickly became evident that there was
not sufficient commitment to organize the
construction of the Trouloulou project30. The
final coordination of the Twist&Turn project and
the preparation of its foundations would in
itself prove to be a formidable volunteer effort.
Fortunately, there was no real time pressure: the
course was completed at the beginning of winter,
which allowed several months to organize a team.
Groupe Tremca had also maintained from the start
that they would complete the formwork and pour
the white concrete mix only when they had avail-
ability in their production schedule31. Stripped
of the formwork, the elements were sandblasted to
give a uniform surface finish and stored on site
until the installation date [FIGURE 22].
One Saturday morning in mid-May 2008, a volunteer
work group of ELC parents, dug out and prepared a
level bed of compacted gravel to receive the CMU
bases for the bench [FIGURE 23], designed to make
it appear to float over the spongy ground cover.
The following Saturday morning, the school
principal came to unlock the schoolyard gate so
that the delivery vehicle and installation team
could hoist the four concrete elements into place
and precisely align them into a continuous ribbon
using neoprene shims to make the appropriate
adjustments. The first children to discover the
bench immediately began to test its potential as
a playing surface [FIGURE 25]. It has since
become a centre of activity in the schoolyard.
Notes:
29Students had worked very hard
during the semester and I assumed
that this personal investment would
evolve into volunteer commitments
after the course ended, especially if it
included the possibility of
constructing their own design. I had
overestimated their enthusiasm, much
of which was exhausted in the push
to complete their final reports. For
most, the end of semester offered a
clean break to shift their attention to
other courses and commitments.
I was also surprised to discover in
the student evaluations a common
complaint that the course did not
have enough lecture content. This
may have been prompted by the
standardized questions of the course
evaluation, but it also reflected that
students did not realize or highly
value the project-based learning.
30In the design development process,
the Troloulou task groups discovered
what Groupe Tremca already knew
at the design proposal stage: that
simple solutions are not always best.
While the design employed basic
elements that are either stocked or
easy to produce at the plant, it
required subconsultants to cut and
core the large tubular sections as well
as the use of steel brackets to
assemble the elements on site. This
added cost and complexity.
31Volunteer services do not imply less
professional or lower quality results.
On the contrary, it often motivates
very high quality work. It does
however demand greater flexibility in
the schedule to accommodate the
availability of stakeholders.
31
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 26 TIMELINE ACT III MOSAIC PROJECT
32
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT III – THE MOSAIC PROJECT
ACT III – SETTING
The mosaic project began as a suggestion to all
bench competition teams to consider involving the
ELC schoolchildren in the design-build process.
The Twist&Turn team originally proposed inviting
children to the concrete plant in order to
incorporate various imprints during casting, but
this idea was rejected due to the complexity of
scheduling and quality control. The Surface
Treatment task group also explored other avenues,
including my suggestion to contact a mosaic
school that teaches contemporary methods for this
ancient art32. The students were enchanted by the
ambiance of Mosaikashop’s studio and the
willingness of its owner to collaborate. In their
final report, they evaluated several scenarios
for integrating a mosaic band in the 10-meter
long bench and offered a number of potential
mosaic themes33. At this point, the story moves
from the McGill SOA studio to new creative
workspaces involving a fresh cast of characters.
ACT III – PRINCIPAL ROLES AND ACTORS
NARRATOR: Richard Klopp, mosaic project
coordinator and principle designer.
MOSAIKASHOP: Mosaic school hosting the initiative
and organizing the volunteers involved in the
production and installation of the work.
ELC SCHOOL ART STUDENTS: Over 50 elementary
school students from 3 separate art classes
participated in the production of mosaic pieces.
Reflection: Open ended project. Value of setting the framework for future projects. Designers tend to be overly controlling of outcomes and try to freeze the work in space and time. But the context is constantly changing and evolving. Reflection (Conclusion): One of the aims of the projects was to get students at ELC School to actively participate in the transformation of their schoolyard. At each stage, there was consultation: in imagining the schoolyard, involvement in various fundraising activities, participation at the jury to review bench proposals, and finally in the production of the mosaic. Involving students in the design processes and exposing them to the diverse range of actors has both pedagogical and vocational benefits. Students invest in the space and take
pride in maintaining it.
Notes:
32 My interest in mosaics was inspired
by the Roman and Punic sites seen in
Tunisia during a travel study trip
organised for McGill SOA students.
On the same trip I had also visited
Gaudi’s work in Barcelona.
33 Student proposals did not do justice
to the richness of possibilities offered
by mosaic. As for any media, to
understand its potential requires
cultivation and experience. The
students did however define a clear
scope and opportunity, which would
form the basis for the initiative.
33
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 27 PROPOSED FORMWORK CHANGES TO INTEGRATE MOSAIC BAND
FIGURE 28 FORMWORK INSERT A COMPROMISE SOLUTION
34
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT III – PLOT
When the bench formwork was delivered in early
2008, Groupe Tremca was informed that a decision
had not yet been reached regarding the nature or
scope of the mosaic and that if it proceeded,
there would likely be some minor modifications to
the formwork. Refer to the timeline [FIGURE 26].
After an intense semester of work, there was a
welcome month-long lull in communication until
Groupe Tremca announced that they were ready to
begin production. A decision had to be made
quickly regarding the mosaic or else the benches
would be cast as delivered34.
I called a meeting with the students and it was
at this point that I discovered that they were
either unavailable or unmotivated to continue to
the next stage35. Feeling personally responsible
for having initiated the mosaic collaboration, I
went to speak with the Mosaikashop owner to
better understand her view of the project and the
work involved. She confirmed her commitment and
reassured me that with the right leadership and
team spirit, a project of this scale could be
successfully realized with ELC schoolchildren and
volunteer mosaic students from her school. Her
enthusiasm to take on the challenge was
contagious, but it was the voice of experience
and her calm professionalism that enticed me to
engage in the project and see it through36.
With the formwork deadline looming, I was able to
secure an agreement-in-principle from ELC School
regarding student involvement and funding before
sending off the proposed formwork modifications
to Groupe Tremca [FIGURE 28].
Notes:
34 Every new project needs a champion:
someone who can recognize an
opportunity and act on it. In this
case, I had hoped that a student
would champion the initiative under
my guidance, but when this did not
happen, I found myself taking on the
role. I was reluctant at first as I was
very conscious of my tendency to over
commit to volunteer projects at the
expense of other professional
opportunities and obligations.
35 As mentioned previously, part of the
problem was that students did not
feel they had adequate knowledge or
skills in mosaic work to be able to
contribute further.
36My initial reluctance to initiate the
project dissolved, when I saw the
complimentary working relationship
that could be possible with
Mosaikashop. All the project
unknowns that were causing my
hesitation – relating to the
involvement of school children, the
production of the mosaic and the
mobilisation of volunteers – were all
part of her professional competencies.
I only had to focus on what I do
best: design, coordination, and
quality control.
35
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 29 MOSAIC TRAINING WORKSHOP 20x20CM TEST TILE FROM IMAGE
FIGURE 30 ELC SCHOOL ART CLASS COMPLETION OF MOSAIC FIGURES
FIGURE 31 MOSAIC PROCESS: FROM DRAWING TO COMPOSITION
36
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT III – PLOT (cont)
Groupe Tremca reacted unfavourably to the
changes. While sympathizing with the desired
design intention of creating a continuous ribbon
of mosaic, they were not prepared to modify the
formwork three times in order to provide the
requested A, B and C modules37. A compromise was
reached to use the B module throughout, in which
the mosaic would face up or out depending on the
module orientation [FIGURE 28].
At this point, the scale of the mosaic work was
clearly defined and my attention turned to issues
of process and content. I organized a meeting at
Mosaikashop with the art teacher from ELC School
to discuss how we would go about involving the
children38. It became obvious that some mosaic
training would be required to properly gauge
expectations and to understand the potential and
constraints of the medium. I enrolled in an
intensive weekend course, which proved to be a
creatively liberating, yet humbling experience.
It took more than three days to produce a 20x20cm
tile [FIGURE 28] – the bench mosaic would be 75
times this size! This experience made it clear
that we would need to work in a loose and
forgiving style that would be quick to execute
and accommodating of the diverse work and skill
levels involved39.
The Mosaikashop instructor led two sessions in
three separate art classes. In the first session,
she gave a brief introduction to mosaic art and
then asked students to make drawings on the bench
theme of bees and flowers. In the second session,
they used precut ceramic tiles to reinterpret
their drawings in mosaic form [FIGURES 30 & 31].
Notes:
37 The inserts were required to create a
recess in the surface that would
ensure that the edges of the mosaic
were protected.
The representative at Groupe Tremca
was often in the unfortunate
position of having to remind me of
the limits of their commitment in this
non-profit initiative. When they
explained the cost and time required
to modify the formwork, I realized
that the design did not thoroughly
address the production issues and I
took it as a challenge to improve the
design.
38From the moment we met with the
art teacher, it was clear that there
would be a personality clash – in the
same way that I had experienced an
immediate sense of complimentary
values with the owner of
Mosaikashop. Although there was
ample evidence on the school walls
attesting to the art teacher’s ability
to motivate the children to produce
high quality work, he seemed very
anxious of the children’s performance
and the outcomes. His teaching style
was very structured and directive
and he had no confidence in the
improvised and exploratory approach
of Mosaikashop. When she came to
give her first workshop, he asked her
to rush through the historical
introduction to get on with the
mosaic work. After this unpleasant
experience, he finally agreed to let the
Mosaic teacher take the lead.
39Learning by doing provides great
insight into the management of the
work of others, expectations of
quality and the creative potential
embedded in the process.
37
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 32 DRY ASSEMBLY AND INSTALLATION FIGURE 33 FINAL MOSAIC INSTALLATION IN BENCH AT ELC SCHOOLYARD
38
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
ACT III – PLOT (cont)
The classroom activities were very productive and
achieved the desired results in a fluid manner.
This was only possible due to the careful
preparation of the materials and forethought
regarding the process and required content40. Over
50 works were created: an even distribution of
bees and flowers from top and side views. These
were arranged into compositions with graphic
instructions on how to complete the background.
I was responsible for project coordination and
the overall artistic direction of the work. This
was quite an interesting design and leadership
challenge: demanding on one hand a clear design
intention with precise instructions41 and on the
other hand, a high degree of adaptability to make
do with shifting constraints and project
results42. For example, when Groupe Tremca vetoed
the continuous mosaic ribbon, I decided to change
the design approach from a singular gesture to a
fragmented series of bright blotches, in order to
achieve the same design intent of deemphasizing
the individual bench modules. The frame around
the mosaic field was also deemphasized by using
background tiles that precisely matched the
concrete in colour variation and matt finish. The
bright blotches were created using the children’s
colourful mosaic works in a sky-coloured, glossy
tile background. The custom tile glazes were
provided by Mosaika, the parent company of the
mosaic school and renown production facility43.
At the time of writing, the mosaic, in its dry
assembled form, was complete [FIGURE 32]. A
confirmed schedule was expected shortly from the
Mosaika installation team.
Notes:
40From the design standpoint, the
number and sizes of drawings had to
be anticipated as well as the colour
palette and drawing themes.
Mosaikashop then prepared mosaic
tiles and the transparent adhesive
that would allow children to easily
compose their mosaic directly over
their drawing.
41While the children felt they had
almost complete artistic freedom,
their work was actually preplanned
to achieve a certain result, with only
a certain amount of stylistic
variation and personalisation.
42 Over a period of several months, a
team of volunteers worked on the
mosaic to fill in the background areas
around the works of the children.
Given this commitment, they were
very sensitive to criticism and I
learned not to become overly
obsessive about the consistency of
work and to accept and appreciate
the differences in the quality and
skill level.
43Working with the best possible
partners gives confidence to the team
and greatly expands the creative and
learning possibilities for all.
39
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 34 SEJ SCHOOLYARD PROJECT SITE PLAN AND PHOTOS
FIGURE 35 STUDENTS FROM SEJ SCHOOL ENGAGE WITH DESIGN PROPOSALS
40
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
EPILOGUE – THE SEQUEL AT SEJ SCHOOL
Given the positive experience of the ELC School
design-build project, I decided to repeat the
exercise with the 2008 Advanced Construction
students. The pedagogical structure was already
in place and there was interest from both the
precast concrete company and the landscape
architect to get involved for a second time44.
After reviewing several potential projects45 with
NIP Paysage, we selected Saint-Enfant-Jésus (SEJ)
School as the most suitable partner, project and
site [FIGURE 34]. The context was similar to ELC
School, comprising a newly renovated schoolyard,
a project team eager to get involved, and a wish
list of items that did not make it into the final
design. With the experience and reputation gained
at ELC School, it was just a matter of a phone
call and a brief meeting on site to get a
commitment from the SEJ School administration46.
While the representatives of the SEJ School were
quite open to evaluating diverse program
proposals from the students, they did
specifically express interest in having new
picnic tables on the raised portion of the site,
from which schoolyard activities could be
monitored. The design would have to be robust,
since the SEJ schoolyard is open to the public
and vandalism has been a problem in the past. One
of the particularities of the SEJ School is that
it offers special services for children with
auditory and visual handicaps. To specifically
address their needs, McGill SOA students were
asked to propose and integrate surface textures
in their final design that would create a unique
tactile landscape47.
Notes:
44Getting commitment from project
stakeholders for repeat work is much
easier due to the shared experience of
the process, team chemistry and
project expectations. Decision-
making is faster and there is less
correspondence. The advantage of
having a model process or project is
that you can make improvements and
avoid repeating mistakes; the
disadvantage is the self-reinforcing
nature of a model, which will tend to
favour optimisation over innovation.
45As project promoters or visionaries,
designers have greater potential to
shape the nature and quality of their
commissions, the design process and
project outcomes than if they are
service providers. In the case of the
design-build project, we were in the
enviable position of being able to
choose from a number of interested
project partners.
46 Prior to the meeting, both the
landscape architect and the ELC
School principal spoke with the SEJ
School vice-principal in support of
the project.
47One of the aims of the Advanced
Construction course is to develop the
students’ knowledge of and curiosity
for the tectonic dimension of
buildings – the joints, assemblies,
and material qualities – in order to
provide a counterpoint to the spatial
explorations that dominate design
studio work. Unfortunately, surface
relief was underexploited by students
in the course or treated as something
completely separate from the design
of the formwork.
41
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 36 JURY PRESENTATIONS WINNING TEAM: CONNEXION
FIGURE 37 RENDERING AND LOCATION PLAN FOR PICNIC TABLE DESIGN
FIGURE 38 ‘CONNEXION’ FORMWORK PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO GROUP TREMCA
42
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
EPILOGUE (cont)
The course unfolded in a similar fashion to the
year previous, with nine student teams preparing
design proposals during the first half of term.
Following their mid-term presentations to the
jury [FIGURES 35 & 36], a winning design was
selected [FIGURE 37] and team members were
redistributed into task groups to prepare
construction drawings and specifications.
The winning proposal48, entitled Connexion, was
quite complex to build [FIGURE 38] and the
formwork could not be completed by the end of
term. The team leader, with assistance of a few
volunteers, finished it the following term and
received credit under a directed studies course.
The work is now at the precast concrete plant.
Despite the many similarities in process and
outcomes, there were some significant differences
between the two design-build projects. The first
year was much more difficult to organize and full
of uncertainty regarding stakeholder commitments,
the process, and results; while the second year
benefited from established relationships,
experiences and reputation of a successful
project. Given my involvement on the ELC
Schoolyard committee, the personal stakes were
higher and I was more motivated by and in control
of the outcomes in the first year. With the SEJ
School, my main motivation was process-oriented:
to create a valuable learning experience for the
Advanced Construction students. While the built
results may be of equal quality, there was not
the same level of engagement with the SEJ School.
For the moment however, the bigger question is
whether there will be a third project.49
Notes:
48Given the experience of the year
before, in which only one of the two
projects was realised, I decided to
limit the design development phase
to just one project and to better
define the tasks so work could be
delegated more easily. In retrospect,
this was a mistake. The task group
sizes of 8-10 students (versus 4-6
students the year before) were simply
too large and the tasks too dispersed.
As a result, students became less
engaged and less accountable, and
coordination issues bogged down the
work. Even the team leaders were
less motivated or they lacked the
necessary management skills. A
second project, even if unrealised,
would have provided the appropriate
challenge and sense of ownership
that was clearly lacking.
49Setting up a successful initiative
requires leadership, but if this
leadership is not translated into an
institutional structure, the leader
will become the weak link that
threatens the viability for any longer
term prospects. I was frequently
made aware of the precarious nature
of the design-build projects that were
often hanging on the commitment or
motivations of a single person. While
institutional commitments would be
required to ensure the future of these
interdisciplinary and community-
based learning opportunities, there
are no advantages for the present
stakeholders to formalize their
relationship beyond the current
project-by-project arrangement. In
my own case, as a sessional course
lecturer, there is little motivation to
institutionalize a program, for which
I have no certainty of bring to
fruition.
43
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
FIGURE 39 INSTALLATION BY GROUP TREMCA
FIGURE 40 COMPLETED WORK AT SEJ SCHOOL
44
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
Conclusion
This case study describes a series of four interrelated community projects, each creating
the context for the next project to unfold. While the built works completed to date can be
considered small successes, they represent just the visible manifestation – the tip of the
iceberg – of a much larger community-building project that has more to do with the
quality of process than outcomes. I was particularly interested in how a project can work
as a catalyst to activate cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration and to create
unique opportunities for learning. My reflections on the project are summarised below.
Motivation in the non-profit sector
Financing is usually the driver of development; profit or fees are the dominant motivator
in the design, management and construction of building projects. The projects of this
case study demonstrate that a team can be organised around other possible motivators:
not only the direct benefits of a completed work, but also a wide scope of indirect
benefits and intangibles accrued during the process, including: social and professional
network building, education and research opportunities, skills development, public
recognition, etc. If these motivations are balanced and transparent, win-win situations
may emerge, in which the interests of stakeholders converge rather than conflict. This
makes a case for the use of parallel economies in community-based projects, where
knowledge and services are the primary form of exchange, rather than capital.
Inverted measures of success
In building projects, we tend to place the greatest importance on built outcomes. Process
is regarded as a necessary evil to achieving them – thus something to be streamlined.
Projects are successful when they are on time, on budget, and have no callbacks. This
case study proposes that the quality of the process can be a driver of equal importance
to schedule, budget and final results, but we need to invert our definition of project
success. As a society and building culture, is our aim truly to minimize the cost and time
invested per square metre? The efficiency of engaging the fewest people to complete
the work in the most expedient and inexpensive manner is not always desirable. In fact,
this model significantly reduces opportunities for a wide range of social benefits.
Alternatively, what if project viability and success was defined as maximizing quality of
45
IDBE CASE STUDY
RICHARD KLOPP
life for each moment or sum invested in a project? This suddenly opens the door to
integrating a wide range of initiatives that add to and extract value from the collaboration
and design process.
Inefficient, yet effective
The ELC Schoolyard projects were extremely inefficient from an end product perspective
of capital or unit of time invested for work realised: four years and thousands of
volunteer hours were invested in a project with a total budget of less than $200,000 that
took only a few weeks to construct. One could argue that had volunteers simply paid out
a portion of the value of their time in money, the children would have benefited from the
results much earlier. Yet from the process perspective, these projects were extremely
effective at maximizing social benefit. An entire community came together and
contributed to the fundraising and project development. This interaction created the
teams that would lead to a number of other initiatives, including the bench and mosaic
projects. Nearly 100 architecture students, 50 schoolchildren, a dozen mosaic students,
and a mix of professionals, academics, industry representatives, trade peoples, and
volunteer parents were directly involved in the design and construction processes, most
participating in a learning-rich context.
Benefits of process valuation
This case study shows how a broad level of stakeholder participation can result in built
works that are well suited to the specific needs of the community they serve and
generate a high level of commitment to the project, both before and after construction.
By analysing the motivations of the stakeholders in an unremunerated context, one can
begin to discover the rich potential that the process holds for individual and collective
benefit in both profit and non-profit scenarios. The indirect benefits and intangibles
mentioned earlier are difficult to quantify, but given their role in sustained engagement of
project stakeholders, these aspects cannot be underestimated. How do we measure the
community benefits of an improved physical environment, social networks, or civic
pride? Project participants can all attest to these benefits, which positively affect their
lives in small ways every day. They may even be responsible for the sudden reverse
trend in student enrolment at ELC School, which began the year after the courtyard
project was completed.
46
COMMUNITY AS CLASSROOM: LAMBERT-CLOSSE SCHOOLYARD REVITALISATION PROJECT
RICHARD KLOPP
Empowerment through education in the built environment
There is an urgent need to empower our increasingly urban populations by demystifying
the building and urban design processes. People outside the design and construction
sector often have the impression that the built environment is something quite fixed and
immutable. It reflects a reality that transforming public space is usually complex and
costly. This case study shows the value of engaging citizens, including children, in the
process of positively transforming their environment, if only to realize that change is
possible and that one need not settle for unsafe and uninspiring spaces.
Keys to success
While there were many commonalities between the four projects described in this case
study, each held a key for defining the success of the overall initiative:
• ACT I exposed the value of process as an end in itself, especially in
speculative ventures where outcomes are uncertain. To repeat a
comment often heard during the early stages of fundraising: “even if we
never succeeded at reaching our goal, the process was worth the effort.”
• ACT II offered valuable insights into setting up successful multidisciplinary
partnerships centred on learning opportunities, where stakeholder
interests are balanced and levels of engagement respected.
• ACT III revealed the importance of project leadership, effective teams and
hands-on learning as generators of unique opportunities.
• The EPILOGUE demonstrated the value of a good reputation and
established teams in getting buy-in and approvals for repeat work.
Finally, to ensure the posterity of a volunteer initiative and minimize the risk of it faltering
with changes in the commitment levels of key individuals, proper documentation of the
process and other administrative structures are needed.
Acknowledgement
Successful projects require teams with committed and talented members. It is to all
those unnamed individuals that contributed their valuable time to the success of the
project and the richness of the process that I dedicate this work.
47