Thesis Proposal

architectural boundaries and the mixed use model: the architecture of secondary learning in the 21st century

Masters Of Architecture Thesis ProposalCandidate: Jason G. BooneAdvisor: Peter MartinSubmitted: 2 May 2012

educ

atio

n

business

civic

boun

dary

of i

nter

est

boundary of interest


p a g e | i

architectural boundaries and the mixed use model: the architecture of secondary learning in the 21st century

student: Jason G. Boonehome phone: 317.412.3536 work phone: 617.964.1700email: [email protected]

advisor: Peter Martinwork phone: 617.308.4440email: [email protected]

thesis 1: Summer 2012

t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s

part I - thesis proposal

1 one page summary

3 thesis statement

6 methods of inquiry

9 building systems integration statement

10 site statement

18 program statement

23 case study analysis

43 sketch problem

47 schedule of reviews & requirements

49 qualifications of review panel

63 annotated bibliography

p a g e | i i

part II - thesis program document

69 overview

70 site description & analysis

88 codes

90 cultural context

91 informational context

93 precedents

99 mission & goals

105 cost evaluation

part III - appendix

t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s

p a g e | 1

p a r t I o n e p a g e s u m m a r y

student: Jason G. Boonehome phone: 317.412.3536 work phone: 617.964.1700email: [email protected]

advisor: Peter Martinwork phone: 617.308.4440email: [email protected]

TitleArchitectural Boundaries And The Mixed Use Model: The Architecture Of Secondary Learning In The 21st Century

Thesis Abstract“Why do I need to know this?” It’s the classic question. High school students ask it because nearly all secondary structured learning in the United States occurs in a place and in a manner that is intentionally disconnected from the real world. My research suggests that policy-makers, superintendents, principals, faculty, parents, private citizens, the business community and especially students expect and desire an alternative model – one that addresses this disconnectedness.

The architectural proposal brings educational, civic, and business user groups together for the advantage of learning and architecturally articulates the physical boundaries between these user groups for maximum benefit. The proposal speculates that there is a learning benefit to be gained for students at the secondary level from co-locating these specific user groups in a single facility. In order to be successful, however, this mixed use model must carefully and intentionally articulate the boundaries between these groups.

p a g e | 2

Method of InquiryDefinition Of TermsDocumentation

• Photography• Drawings• Direct Observation

Analysis• Hand And Digital Drawing• Physical And Digital Modelling• Personal Interviews

Metaresearch

Terms of CriticismDoes the architecture:

1. Align with constructivist learning theory?2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured

learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate

in the learning process?5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities

systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

Building Typology & Approximate SizeThe proposal co-locates structured educational spaces for secondary students with civic and private business entities in a mixed use building typology of approximately 200,000 gross square feet.

Site & LocationThe proposed site exists on an unassigned and undeveloped parcel between Northern Avenue and Seaport Boulevard in the Seaport District of South Boston.

o n e p a g e s u m m a r y

p a g e | 3

p a r t I

THESIS STATEMENTClaudia Wallis, the author of a 2006 Time Magazine article about 21st Century Schools, created a version of Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle tale to illustrate how far behind our American educational system is relative to other social and technological advances. In her version of the story, Rip Van Winkle awakes after a century of slumber to find himself in the early twenty-first century where everything from cars to cellular telephones to grocery stores dramatically differs from what he remembers. It is only when he stumbles into a school that he recognizes something as familiar1. Wallis focuses the attention of her article on education claiming that both the values on which America bases its educational system and the expected outcomes produced are outdated. She identifies four 21st century skills undervalued and/or missing. Although she did not explicitly associate her Rip Van Winkle tale with educational facilities, which is the focus of this proposal, there is ample evidence to suggest that they, too, have changed little over the last century.

As a response to this observation, this proposal makes an argument for an architectural intervention that both recognizes Wallis’s and others’ suggestions that the outcomes of the educational system must evolve and challenges many of the entrenched, but perhaps obsolete, truisms of educational delivery related to when and where learning occurs. This intervention, which I have named the mixed use model for secondary education, is one that defines a set of architectural considerations intended to position both secondary educational delivery and its educational facilities squarely in the twenty-first century by blurring the boundaries between educational facilities, civic resources, and private business entities.

Questioning the nature of where learning happens is not a new enterprise. Giancarlo De Carlo wrote an essay in the 1969 Harvard Educational review questioning why and how to build school buildings. The essay begins with an articulation of four critical questions challenging the need for and the validity of both the educational system of the time and the facilities that housed it. De Carlo’s four critical questions are as relevant today as they were then. They characterize how educators, policy-makers, designers, planners and architects should think about education and educational facilities today.

1 Claudia Wallis, “How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century”, Time Magazine, 1.

educ

atio

n

business

civic

boun

dary

of i

nter

est



conceptual thesis diagram

t h e s i s s t a t e m e n t

p a g e | 4

• Isitreallynecessaryforcontemporarysocietythateducationalactivitybeorganizedinastableandcodifiedinstitution?

• Musteducationalactivitytakeplaceinbuildingsdesignedespeciallyforthatpurpose?

• Isthereadirectandreciprocalrelationshipbetweeneducationalactivityandthequalityofthebuildingsinwhichitgoeson?

• Musttheplanningandconstructionofbuildingsforeducationalactivitybeentrustedtospecialists?2

De Carlo’s response to the first question suggests that learning, real and meaningful learning, occurs elsewhere other than within an educational institution and is based on the acquisition of a broad and varied set of experiences. He claims that by its very nature, education that occurs within the confines of an educational institution, as he calls them, is designed intentionally to limit experience.

The position of mid-twentieth century architects and educators like DeCarlo are neither out of date nor unique in their perception of education, but few, if any, architectural solutions successfully respond. As recently as January 2012, a set of community stakeholders in a town just outside Boston communicated similar feelings in an educational visioning workshop. When asked “What will students be doing in 2020?”, small groups responded with:

• Facilitatedinternships• Servicelearning• [Takingadvantageof]wideopenspaceslearningspaces• Technologicalcollaboration• In-residencecollaboration[withoneanother]• Eliminationoftraditionalschoolday-bigopeningatmidday• Linkextracurricularwithacademics• Leveragetechnologytether• Makekidsteachers3

And similarly, when asked “How will the community be involved in the educational process in 2020?” small groups responded with:

• Volunteerprofessionalexpertiseprovidedbycommunity• Hoststointerns• On-siteimmersion[inprofessionalpractice]• Intentionalrelationship-building[betweenprofessional

communityandeducationalinstitution]-Notjustdumpkidsinworkplace

2 Giancarlo De Carlo, “Why/How to Build School Buildings”, Harvard Educational Review: Architecture and Education, Vol. 39 no. 4 (1969): 12.

3 Dr. Frank Locker, “Visioning Report”, Unpublished for Randolph Public Schools, January 2012, 3.


p a g e | 5

p a r t I

• Symbioticrelationships[withasmanynon-educationalandpost-secondaryeducationalentitiesaspossible]

• Competency-based-developmentalstages-multi-ageatHSandbeyondageeighteen4

The thesis of this proposal, then, suggests that architecture has a role to play in expressing these thoughts on the future of secondary educational delivery. But co-locating educational environments, civic resources, and private business entities is in and of itself is only a first step. To elicit the most learning benefit, the architectural response requires the careful consideration of the most critical architectural moment, the boundary between them. The physical element defining the boundary between these elements must be as open and connected architecturally as possible.

In closing, educational delivery and educational facilities have changed very little over the last century while business practices, technological advances, and skill sets required for success have evolved significantly. By and large, education and educational facilities continue to be disconnected from the real world. Experts agree that it is imperative that educational facilities supporting students must evolve, too. Architecture and the architectural disciplines have a role to play in this evolution. The mixed use model responds to desires from students, educators, and business professionals by first positioning multiple use groups within the same facility and then by making those environments open and connected to one another to the mutual advantage of all. Students will have ready access to rich, meaningful and real learning experiences outside the classroom. Non-educational uses will have access to instructional spaces, a critical mass of customers, and the ability to play an active role in the education of future employees.

4 Locker, “Visioning Report”, 3.


p a g e | 6

METHODS OF INQUIRYThe methods of inquiry identified in this section serve to uncover insight related to a wide area of interests and are meant to be deployed at a variety of scales and milestones in the design process. Establishing a glossary of definitions is the first method of inquiry. It is critical to create a common language to be used throughout the thesis in an effort to lesson confusion.

The next logical method of inquiry is documentation. This proposal identifies several means for documentation including photography, gathering of drawings, direct observation, and note taking/sketching. Precedents and existing conditions will be as the primary focus of documentation, but the need to document additional items may prove necessary as the design of the project proceeds. The intent of this line of inquiry, regardless of the subject matter, is to establish a record, a sample set, to be analyzed.

Analysis of information for commonalities, differences, and generalities is proposed as a third method. Analytical means will include hand and digital drawing, digital and physical modelling, and personal interviews. Drawings and models will serve as the best tools to uncover insight about spatial and tactile qualities, but the personal interviews will offer the best understanding of any experiential qualities present. The objective for this line of inquiry is to draw conclusions that can be applied to the project when making design decisions.

In parallel with these methods of inquiry, this proposal identifies metaresearch as a final line of inquiry. The metarearch proposed reviews the research of others not only related to architecture, but also to educational research pertaining to the impact and benefit of the built environment on learning. The goal of the metaresearch is to understand the process used by others for generating educational architecture and to establish a baseline understanding of what secondary educational delivery requires pedagogically, programmatically, and architecturally.

definition of termsdocumentation

• photography• drawings• directobservation

analysis• handanddigital

drawing• physicalanddigital

modelling• personalinterviews

metaresearch

m e t h o d s o f i n q u i r y

p a g e | 7

p a r t I

TERMS OF CRITICISM Success of any architectural theory, concept, or thesis must be evaluated against a set of criteria or terms of criticism. More often than not, the designer has little input and critics define their own terms of criticism. As the exploration of this thesis serves to advance a designer’s education, the narrative that follows defines the terms of criticism to be used by any potential critics. It is important to note that these terms of criticism are intended for the evaluation of the project, the application of the thesis to a specific program, and not strictly the thesis. A successful project must:

1. Alignwithconstructivistlearningtheory?

Constructivism is a learning theory that suggests knowledge is constructed by individual learners based on their unique experiences. The architecture of the successful project supports this approach by providing rich and diverse set of spatial experiences as well as access to the experiences of the non-educational use groups.

2. Co-locatestructuredlearningspaces,unstructuredlearningspaces,business,andcivicspacesinamannerthatprovidesnewand/orenrichedlearningopportunities?

It is the access to these non-educational user groups that has the greatest potential to enrich learning. To be successful, however, the project must carefully consider the spatial relationships between educational, civic, and business entities. Educational spaces must be interwoven with the business and civic entities rather than separated.

3. Increasethevalueandvisibilityoflearning?

Far too often the learning that occurs is invisible to members of the business community and the general public. The successful project permits members of the public to witness first-hand and in real time at least some of the learning occurring. Care must be taken, however, to balance visibility with the safety of students.

4. Offernon-educationalentitiesanopportunitytoparticipateinthelearningprocess?

The mixed use model suggests that benefits exist in both


p a g e | 8

directions; students learn by being in the presence of professionals and professionals benefit from the ability to shape the skill sets of students. The successful project establishes spatial relationships that locate structured learning environments near, if not immediately adjacent or internally connected to, professional and civic spaces with similar function and purpose.

5. Articulatethephysicalboundariesbetweenentitiessystematically,consistentlyandtothegreatestbenefitoflearning?

The nature of the relationship between educational, business, and civic entities must be expressed in architecture of their shared boundaries. The successful project articulates the qualities of openness and connectedness consistently and according to a system yet to be determined. A sample articulation system, for example, might dictate that the boundary between educational specialty labs and business specialty labs be visually connected, but closed.

connectedness diagram

openness diagram

t e r m s o f c r i t i c i s m

p a g e | 9

p a r t I

BUILDING SYSTEMS INTEGRATION STATEMENTThe thesis specifically co-locates several different user groups together in a mixed use facility. This inherently creates challenges related to the major building systems. To the greatest extent possible, however, the building systems must:

• architecturally establish that the different user groups are united in a common mission,

• express the building systems as a teaching tool and an integral part of the building aesthetic,

• establish the appropriate level of separation and or/duplication of systems for each user group.

In addition to these goals, this proposals adopts an integrated delivery approach. Solutions for structural, architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems will evolve simultaneously and inform one another. In fact, several of the intended building systems, especially those inherently linked to energy conservation such as passivhaus standards for the building envelope and rain water collection require this approach.

Other important issues and constraints affecting building technologies include zoning, codes, accessibility requirements. The project will be subject to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) requirements that are in addition to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The project will also be subject to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation 781 (CMR 781) which adopts the 2009 International Building Code (IBC 2009).

fire separation and MEP/FP diagrams

rain water collection diagram

b u i l d i n g s y s t e m s

p a g e | 1 0

SITE STATEMENTThe mixed use program at the heart of the project requires a site that:

• Is able to host a wide range of use groups• Already possess a diverse set of use groups, but still

needs core elements• Accessible to public transit, vehicular and pedestrian

circulation routes• Sized to accommodate interior and landscaped

environments• Currently un- or under-developed

These characteristics acknowledge that this one project has an opportunity to contribute to its surrounding context in a meaningful way and that it’s contribution has limits. Looking for sites with a richness of land use only adds opportunity to the learning environment.

The selected site, see in yellow to the right, is located on a currently undeveloped parcel in an area of Boston named the Innovation District. This area is more commonly referred to as the Seaport District and contains the old Fort Point Channel neighborhood, the Moakley Federal Courthouse, the Institute for Contemporary Art, the Seaport World Trade Center, and the Boston Convention Center.

The site plan to the right communicates a long term master plan for the area. Dark grey areas represent existing buildings. Light grey areas indicate proposed buildings. The proposed sight for this project lies at the heart of this new development. Maps, illustrations, and diagrams on the subsequent pages identify each proposed parcel in the master plan, communicate expected uses, and give a sense of the vision for the neighborhood.

It should be noted that the master plan identifies the proposed site as planned open space and that this project intends to honor that plan by providing for outdoor community space on the ground floor. More poetically, however, there is every intent for this project to represent a moment of relief in the relentless grid from the planned building heights adjacent to this parcel. In many ways, the expectation is to maintain the spirit of the master plan while contributing something new and valuable to the neighborhood.

city context

neighborhood context

state context

s i t e s t a t e m e n t

p a g e | 11

Seaport Boulevard

Northern Avenue

Congress Street

Summer Street

Bost

on W

harf

Road

East

Ser

vice

Road

p a g e | 1 2

prepared by:

Figure 1-1

Project Site

DEVELOPMENTWS

Project Area

Project Site

23 Acres Seaport Square

7,280 SF Parcel E open space

on ground levelbelow Summer St.mer SSt.

Boston Tea PartyMuseum

Children’sCCCCCWharf ParkWWWWWW

Children’seMuseummmeuMMM

Fort PointiPoChannel Districtctel Distrnn

Slee

per

St.

SO

ld

Slee

per

St.

per

Farn

swo

rth

S

t.F

rth

St

Tho

mso

n

St. S

Still

ing

s

St.

Sill

iSt St

Still

ing

‘A’

St

.

Congress St.

Summer St.

Autumn Lane Seaport WorldrroTrade Centerrrre

Bo

sto

n

Wh

arf

Rd

.

Har

bo

r

St.

Har

bo

r

Wayyay

Way

Way

Wa

Wa

W W W

r

or

o

r b

or

bo

rbo

rb arb

arb

Har

Ha

Ha

HHHHa

Har

Har ar

bar

bo

rbo

bo

rb

or

or

or

r

W WW

aW

aW

ayW

ayayyy

St.

N.

Har

bo

r

ara

Ex

ten

sio

nPi

er

St

. Pi

r B

ou

leva

rdFa

n

P Pie

r P

r

d

East

S

ervi

ce

Rd.

‘B’

St.

Congress St. Bridge

Old Northern Avenue Bridged Northern Avenue g

Old NortheOld Northerern Avenue B gern Avenue BridgOld N n Avenue Bridggerir ggg

oortththetheNoNoortrtN hth nuue BBBB iiiidgdgeedidiBBA enue Bridr

Evelyn Moakley Bridge

Seaport Hill

SSStillingsSSStillings St. ExteStillings St. ExteSS illi St E ensionennsene

SeaportrtS tpSquareGreen

PPlaza

L5 CornerSquareSSquare

Active Open Space

‘M’ Way

CourthouseCCCoCCCCoCoouururtrthththohoououususesseeCoCoououurrtrththhohououoususseseseeCCSquare quququauauararere re e qquququauauararerereeq

Seaport Boulevard

Northern Avenue

MoakleyMFederal Court House

N

development parcel map5


5 Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report. EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-10.

p a g e | 1 3

p a r t I

Summer Street

Congress Street

Summer Street Bridge

Congress Street Bridge


Northern Avenue Bridge

Congress St

D St

reet

East

Ser

vice

Roa

d

B St

reet

Seap

ort L

ane

Wor

ld T

rade

Cen

ter A

venu

e

Bost

on W

harf

Roa

d

Harb

or S

treet

Autumn Lane

Seaport Boulevard

Northern Avenue

Fort

Poin

t Cha

nnel

Boston Inner Harbor

Waterfront

Still

ings

Stre

et

Thom

pson

Stre

et

Farn

swor

th S

treet

Slee

per S

treet

Cour

t Hou

se W

ay

Fan

Pier

Bou

leva

rd

Pier

Stre

et

Cove Street

Promenade

Wes

t Ser

vice

Roa

d

A St

reet

Sout

h Bo

ston

Byp

ass

Road

ICA

BostonConvention

and Exhibition

Center

Rose

F

K

enne

dy G

reen

way

Moakley Federal Courthouse

Children’sMuseum

Vent Building

Boston Tea PartyShip and Museum

Hospitality

Commercial / Mixed Use

Residential / Mixed Use

Green / Open Space

PREDOMINANT USES:

Retail / Entertainment

Project Area

Parcel E

Parkingar

0 100' 200' 400'N

Education / Institution / Cultural

prepared by:

Existing &ProposedLand Use of Surroundings

DEVELOPMENTWS

Figure 1-45

BCECExpansion

Figure 1-21

land use diagram6



p a g e | 1 4

In addition, there is an expectation is to leverage the information from the land use diagram and from the master plan documents as drivers for the locations of specific program elements within the project. This information will also inform material selections, solar orientation, and massing.

The existing vernacular in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood, for example, is largely three to five story rectilinear commercial buildings made of red brick. This area was the creation of the Boston Warf Company begun in the late nineteenth century for the storage of goods arriving to Boston by ship. The portion of the Seaport District now called Fan Pier was developed much later and is currently under development with mixed use residential and retail buildings between the Moakley Courthouse and the Institute for Contemporary Art.

The images to the left, below and on page sixteen provide some sense of the existing scale and materiality located around the proposed site. The images communicate a uniformity of material and scale in the Fort Point neighborhood that is not reflected in the newest development near One Marina Park Drive. A critical decision moving forward will be whether or not to be sensitive to this local vernacular, to be responsive to the new development, or to attempt to mitigate the transition as the site is a boundary itself.

1

2

3

4

5 6

7 8


p a g e | 1 5

p a r t I

1

2

3

4

56

78

9

11

12

13

10


p a g e | 1 6

9

11

12

13 10


p a g e | 1 8

PROGRAM STATEMENTA program serving several user groups is necessary to sufficiently test the thesis in this proposal. As the desire to study boundaries grew out of a passion for learning environments and as the project possesses the potential to establish a new model for secondary education learning environments, a logic exists to compile a program with an educational focus. The proposed program serves five user groups:

• An educational use group• Several business use groups• Several assembly use groups• A residential use group• A mercantile use group

There is a recognition that not every use group belongs in or can be accommodated in a single building. The argument for bringing five use groups together in a single program is to provide enough critical mass to benefit students and to demonstrate the validity of the thesis.

The portion of the program identified in the educational use group serves a public charter high school for four hundred and eighty students and a full time faculty/administration of forty. This portion of the program will anchor the project and expects to occupy a significant percentage of the overall square footage. Specific spaces in this portion of the program are those related to structured learning, spaces dedicated for student use. Other spaces, which may or may not belong in this portion of the program, include non-structured learning spaces, spaces for ad-hoc student use, but that may also be used for business or civic entities when not in use by students.

The portion of the program identified in the business use group serves two small scale retail tenants, a twenty person architectural practice, a social media start-up corporation, an artist’s studio, a for-profit fitness business, and a specialized but public library. No single program element is the business use group expects to occupy a significant percentage of the overall square footage and the group as a whole will occupy approximately 25% of the total programmed area.

Spatial elements identified in the assembly use group include one large scale performance venue and one small scale performance

Education55%Business

23%

Civic14%

Residential8%

NET SF SummaryEducation 71,760Business 30,800Civic 18,300Residential 11,000Total 131,860

p r o g r a m s t a t e m e n t

p a g e | 1 9

p a r t I

venue with capacities of five hundred and one hundred fifty persons respectively. In addition, the program expects to contain additional assembly areas related to the consumption of food yet to be determined. Although the this use group contains several individual spaces with large volumes and floor areas, their collective contribution expects to be less than 25% the overall programmed area.

The residential units in the program are intended to serve as the most private and separated spaces. They are intended to test the thesis at one extreme. The proposed program contains only ten units - eight two bedroom units and two three bedroom units. Ten units is not enough critical mass to sustain the non-educational use groups alone, but a small residential component gives a mixed use building life, particularly after hours and offers additional opportunities for synergy with members of the general public.

The mercantile use group tests the thesis on the opposite extreme. It represents a program element that expects to be very open. The mercantile group will likely represent a grocery store, farmer’s market, and/or dining establishment. Similar to the residential component, a program element focused around food gives a mixed use facility a life it may not have otherwise.

Each use group identified in the program represents users with an interest in learning. The business groups, assembly groups and mercantile groups all have an interest in well educated young people to serve as members of current as well as the future labor pool. The immediate proximity offers them opportunities to recruit, cultivate, and market their industries to talented young people. Students have the advantage of witnessing first hand where and how content is relevant. Although it is impossible to assemble a set of use groups to satisfy all the interests of students, this program represents a vast improvement over the existing paradigms. The sites proximity to more opportunities only adds to the likelihood of this ability to witness something of interest first hand.

The table and illustration on the following pages communicate the expected major space allocations and spatial relationships. The intent of the diagram is to express that use groups will not be separated geographically in the building but rather interwoven with one another. Business and civic “anchors” such as the library


p a g e | 2 0

conceptual spatial relationship diagramfloor plan

conceptual spatial relationship diagrambuilding section


p a g e | 2 1

p a r t I

480

Space NameUser

CatagoryIBC Use Group Quantity

SizeNSF Each Total NSF

Commons Education E 2 2,500 5,000Student Workstation Education E 240 64 15,360Project Room Education E 6 1,200 7,200Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Education E 12 600 7,200Faculty Shared Professional Space Education E 24 100 2,400Administrative Suite Education E 1 1,000 1,000Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Education E 2 1,800 3,600Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Education E 2 1,800 3,600Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Education E 2 1,800 3,600Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Education E 2 1,800 3,600Studio Education E 12 1,600 19,200Gallery Unassigned 1 (in gross)Outdoor Learning Space Unassigned N/ARetail Suite ‐ 1 Business B 1 800 800Retail Suite ‐ 2 Business B 1 2,000 2,000Architectural Firm Suite Business B 1 8,000 8,000Business Start‐up Suite Business B 3 2,000 6,000Artist Studio Suite Business B 2 2,000 4,000Fitness Suite Business B 1 5,000 5,000Grocery Store Business M 1 5,000 5,000Art, Architecture and Technology Library Civic B 1 2,500 2,500Performance Venue 1 ‐ Seating Civic A 1 6,000 6,000Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Civic B 1 6,000 6,000Performance Venue 2 ‐ Seating Civic A 1 1,800 1,800Performance Venue 2 ‐ Support Civic B 1 2,000 2,0002 BR Residential Unit Residential R 8 1,000 8,0003 BR Residential Unit Residential R 2 1,500 3,000SUBTOTAL 131,860

Net to Gross Multiplier 1.50 197,790

Conceptual GSF Target for Project 200,000

Total Student Enrollment


p a g e | 2 2

and grocery will likely be located in response to existing site conditions such as neighboring uses, pedestrian traffic, and site lines. Determining the location of these anchors will drive spatial relationship decisions for the remainder of the program.

This strategy of interweaving use groups for the benefit of learning creates challenges for use separation as required by the building code. Business uses and residential uses, for example, must be separated by a 1-hr fire rated assembly. Similarly, four hundred and eight students have the potential to produce a fair amount of noise. Acoustical separation will be critical for the success of the project. These two requirements for separation are not necessarily in conflict with a thesis related to open and connected boundaries, but creative solutions will be necessary.


p a g e | 2 3

p a r t I

ARCHITECTURAL CASE STUDIESThe thesis in this proposal states that boundaries, those architectural elements that physically separate and define spatial relationships, play a role in the effectiveness of secondary education learning environments. Research reviewed for this proposal and personal experience reveal that most secondary educational environments are highly disconnected and closed from one another and the outside world - a disconnectedness that prohibits learners ability to witness and participate in those places where their learning has the most value.

Four case studies presented on the following pages test this understanding by expressing boundary conditions in terms of a boundary quality matrix developed for this proposal. The matrix, seen to the right, defines the range of possibilities for nine qualities.

Three of the four case studies analyze every boundary in plan relative to openness and connectedness. One case study evaluates single boundaries relative to the entire matrix. Each analysis reveals something unique, but both techniques are intended to better understand the impact on the experience of the student made by the architectural decisions.

BOUNDARY QUALITY MATRIX

c a s e s t u d y a n a l y s i s

p a g e | 2 4

Strawberry Vale Elementary SchoolEnvironmental Sciences Thematic School - Vancouver, British Columbia

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

2

1

Project name: Strawberry Vale SchoolLocation: Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaProgram: School buildingArea: Project area: 3,290 m2Year: Project year: 1992–1995Project by: Patkau Architects

Project team: Grace Cheung, Michael Cunningham, Michael Kothke, Tim Newton, John Patkau, Patricia Patkau, David Shone, Peter Suter, Allan Teramura, John Wall, Jacqueline Wang

Consultants: Structural: C.Y. Loh Associates Mechanical: D.W. Thomson ConsultantsElectrical: Reid Crowther & PartnersSpecifications: Susan Morris SpecificationsQuantity Surveyors: BTY GroupAcoustics: BKL ConsultantsLandscape Architecture: Moura Quayle Landscape Architect / Lanarc Consultants Civil: Duncan & Associates EngineeringMaterials: Environmental Research Group, UBC School of Architecture Signage: Vaitkunas DesignGeotechnical: Thurber EngineeringFire Protection: Gage Babcock & Associates

Others:General Contractor: JCR ConstructionModel Team: Tim Newton, John WallText: Courtesy of Patkau ArchitectsImages: Courtesy of Patkau ArchitectsPhoto Credit: James Dow


p a g e | 2 5

p a r t I

boundary legend

1

3

3

2


p a g e | 2 6

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

Strawberry Vale Elementary SchoolEnvironmental Sciences Thematic School - Vancouver, British Columbia


Project name: Strawberry Vale SchoolLocation: Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaProgram: School buildingArea: Project area: 3,290 m2Year: Project year: 1992–1995Project by: Patkau Architects

Project team: Grace Cheung, Michael Cunningham, Michael Kothke, Tim Newton, John Patkau, Patricia Patkau, David Shone, Peter Suter, Allan Teramura, John Wall, Jacqueline Wang

Consultants: Structural: C.Y. Loh Associates Mechanical: D.W. Thomson ConsultantsElectrical: Reid Crowther & PartnersSpecifications: Susan Morris SpecificationsQuantity Surveyors: BTY GroupAcoustics: BKL ConsultantsLandscape Architecture: Moura Quayle Landscape Architect / Lanarc Consultants Civil: Duncan & Associates EngineeringMaterials: Environmental Research Group, UBC School of Architecture Signage: Vaitkunas DesignGeotechnical: Thurber EngineeringFire Protection: Gage Babcock & Associates

Others:General Contractor: JCR ConstructionModel Team: Tim Newton, John WallText: Courtesy of Patkau ArchitectsImages: Courtesy of Patkau ArchitectsPhoto Credit: James Dow

p a g e | 2 7

p a r t I

4

5

boundary legend

4

5


p a g e | 2 8

Putnam High SchoolComprehensive High School - Putnam, CT

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

1

2

1

2

Project name: Putnam High SchoolLocation: Putnam, CTProgram: 9-12 High School BuildingPopulation Size: 400 StudentsArea: Project area: 90,000 GSFYear: Project year: 1950

Photo Credit: Paul Brown, DRA Architects


p a g e | 2 9

p a r t I

boundary legend

34

3

4


p a g e | 3 0

Putnam High SchoolComprehensive High School - Putnam, CT

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

Project name: Putnam High SchoolLocation: Putnam, CTProgram: 9-12 High School BuildingPopulation Size: 400 StudentsArea: Project area: 90,000 GSFYear: Project year: 1950

Photo Credit: Paul Brown, DRA Architects

56

78

5

6


p a g e | 3 1

p a r t I

boundary legend

7

8


p a g e | 3 2

High Tech High internationalComprehensive High School - San Diego, CA

o p e n n e s s d i a g r a m - 2 n d f l o o r

Project name: HIgh Tech High InternationalLocation: San Diego, CAProgram: 9-12 High School BuildingPopulation Size: 400 StudentsArea: Project area: 32,000 GSFYear: Project year: 1950

Architect of REcord: Carrier JohnsonPhotos Courtesy of DesignShare.com


p a g e | 3 3

p a r t I

boundary legend

2

1

1

2


p a g e | 3 4

c o n n e c t e d n e s s d i a g r a m - 2 n d f l o o r

3

3

High Tech High internationalComprehensive High School - San Diego, CA

Project name: HIgh Tech High InternationalLocation: San Diego, CAProgram: 9-12 High School BuildingPopulation Size: 400 StudentsArea: Project area: 32,000 GSFYear: Project year: 1950

Architect of REcord: Carrier JohnsonPhotos Courtesy of DesignShare.com


p a g e | 3 5

p a r t I

boundary legend

4

4


p a g e | 3 6

e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r y a n a l y s i s

Math Classroom - Exterior Boundary AnalysisSoutheastern Regional Vocational Technical High School - Easton, MA

SOLIDITY

• Painted CMU• Single Pane Glass in

Aluminum Frames• Fin-tube Radiation• Thru-wall Unit Ventilator

All materials are solid and provide complete enclosure.

CONNECTEDNESS

• Transparent Glazing

Transparent materials intended to allow natural daylight to enter space and for users to see through boundary to exterior. Excessive glare limits effectiveness as view panel and potentially adversely impacts learning.

USABILITY

No portion of the boundary is usable as seating, display area and has no ability to engage the occupant.

key plan

enlarged floor plan


p a g e | 3 7

p a r t I

Overall Occupant Experience

The boundary from the interior only provides protection from the elements. It does not invite the occupant to pass through or even experience views to the exterior. The overall effect is to encourage occupant attention on another boundary.

• ORIENTATION: Vertical• SOLIDITY: Solid• REGULARITY: Moderately Varied• OPENNESS: Closed• CONNECTEDNESS: Visually Connected• TEMPORAL: Permanent• WELCOMENESS: Ambiguous• USABILITY: Unusable

BOUNDARY QUALITIES - Interior Condition


p a g e | 3 8

CONNECTEDNESS

• Transparent Glazing

Although the boundary is visually connected from the exterior to the interior and vice versa, no exterior user is intended to pass by these windows and experience the learning taking place inside.

A chiller plant located within feet of the classroom prohibits any views from within to the exterior and is partially to blame for the excessive glare experienced from within the classroom.

WELCOMENESS

• Clay Masonry• Precast Concrete Sills and

Beams

Although brick is a warmer material than CMU, the uniformity of the overall facade does not draw occupants to this boundary.

key plan

enlarged floor plan


p a g e | 3 9

p a r t I

• ORIENTATION: Vertical• SOLIDITY: Solid• REGULARITY: Moderately Varied• OPENNESS: Closed• CONNECTEDNESS: Visually Connected• TEMPORAL: Permanent• WELCOMENESS: Ambiguous• USABILITY: Unusable

BOUNDARY QUALITIES - Exterior Condition Overall Occupant Experience

The boundary from the exterior is largely about utility - providing enclosure for the cheapest cost. Its visual connection to the interior was never intended to be experienced from the exterior.


p a g e | 4 0

Insight Gained from AnalysisAll of the examples analyzed were strictly educational facilities. No portion of their facilities were open to the general public.

Strawberry Vale Elementary SchoolStrawberry Vale Elementary School exists as an Environmental Magnet School which means its entire curriculum is delivered with a focus on environmental science. Reading, math, science and all other subjects leverage examples from the environment. As such, we’d expect the connectedness analysis to reveal intentionally connecting the indoors and outdoors. And, in fact, that is exactly what the analysis reveals. Vision panels and glazing are placed in such a manner to visually connect the classrooms with the natural landscape outside. The analysis also reveals, however, that individual classrooms are highly disconnected from one another implying that teachers teach in isolation and students in one classroom have little or no opportunities to interact with students in other classrooms. Although this is an elementary school, as a case study it demonstrates the validity of the analysis tool. It demonstrates that the mission and focus of the school can be read in the architectural expression of openness and connectedness.

Putnam High SchoolPutnam High School is the classic comprehensive high school. The school is organized departmentally y content area. There are general classrooms for English, Mathematics, Social Studies, specialty classrooms for Science, Art, Music and Technology Education. Such an organizational pattern requires students to travel from classroom to classroom on a regular schedule. We might expect to see repeated learning spaces as self-contained as possible with as few openings to the corridor as possible. The openness analysis for Putnam High School reveals exactly that. Standardized classroom spaces have highly selective openings from anonymous corridors. The building itself has highly selective openings to the outside world for control purposes. As a case study, Putnam High School represents the anti-precedent, the model upon which the thesis in this proposal intends to improve.

strawberry vale elementary school connectedness diagram - visual connection to the exterior only

putnam high school openness diagram - limited openness to corridor, no openness

to adajecnt classroms

CRCR

CRCR

ENG ENG ENG

ENGART


p a g e | 4 1

p a r t I

High Tech High School InternationalHigh Tech High School International, the first of the High Tech High franchise houses strictly educational facilities, but represents a shift in thinking about the visibility of learning. First and unlike Putnam High School, learning spaces are not confirmed to regularized classrooms - although there are some. High Tech High International leverages the circulation spaces as freely open learning environments. District leadership believes there to be value in students seeing other students learning. As such, we’d expect the analysis to reveal more visual and acoustical connectedness throughout the facility. Although only the analysis of the second floor has been shared, the analysis does, in fact reveal a much greater level of connection internally. Controllable visual connections between classrooms and teacher work rooms allow students to see how teachers work.

Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical High SchoolSoutheastern Regional Vocational Technical High School adopts the traditional vocational school model where real world professions are simulated in the classroom. The 300,000 SF facility not only houses the core academic subjects, but also houses Construction Trades, Electricity, Automotive Technology, Cosmetology, Commercial Art, and a number of other trades. Although this precedent occupies a position slightly closer to the thesis within this proposal, the exterior boundary conditions do little or nothing to connect this learning to the real world. Even the boundaries of the simulated real-world environments severely restrict access to these spaces by the general public.

Leveraging the MethodThe intent is to leverage this method of analysis to determine whether or not the project creates architectural boundaries that open learning spaces to and connect them with the real world. The illustration to the right depicts a concept-level understanding of a portion of the proposed program using this graphic language.

CR

CR

CR

CR CR

CR

STUDIO(circulation)

teachers


high tech high school connectedness diagram - extensive visual connections to

interior

concept-level partial plan openness diagram

p a g e | 4 2

s k e t c h p r o b l e m

p a g e | 4 3

p a r t I

SKECTH PROBLEMStudents were challenged to design and illustrate with analytical drawings, sketches, and models the exploratory ideas within each thesis project resulting in a final manifestation of using three walls and three openings. Designs were to state something about the thesis investigation, possibly its site location, intended building programme and/or design philosophy.

WallNoun. A physical impediment that defines the edge(s) between two or more volumes.

OpeningAn absence of material within a wall that interrupts the continuity of the wall.

Implied WallAn arrangement of physical elements such that an identifiable but implied plane is created.

Implied OpeningAn absence of material at the terminus of a wall such that a gap exists in a place where the wall would otherwise intersect another wall.

Definitions and representations of walls and openings are particularly relevant to a thesis about boundaries. From these initial definitions, five basic architectural constructs for walls and openings were developed and explored in a variety of combinations. The end result was an architectural pattern language for expressing openness and connectedness between spaces.


p a g e | 4 4


basic architectural constructs

wall

opening

implied opening at corner

implied opening

implied wall

three intersecting walls, no openings three intersecting walls, three non-intersecting openings

three intersecting walls, three intersecting rectilinear openings

three intersecting walls, three intersecting non-rectilinear openings

intersection of wall, implied wall and implied openings

intersection of wall, implied wall and implied openings - variation

p a g e | 4 5

p a r t I

Outcomes and FindingsEducational facilities, even those that possess a greater level of openness and connectedness, rarely deploy architectural strategies with a high degree of variety and interest. By leveraging the simple constructs developed over the course of this sketch problem, several opportunities exist to fulfill the intent of the thesis and to create architectural interest.


boundary model as diagrammed

boundary model reoriented

boundary model reoriented

p a g e | 4 6

s c h e d u l e

p a g e | 4 7

p a r t I s c h e d u l e

2012 Schedule of Reviews

28 AUG Introductory

09 OCT Preliminary

20 NOV Schematic

2013 Schedule of Reviews

15 JAN Design Development

26 FEB Final Presentation

26 MAR Document

SCHEDULE OF REVIEWSThe dates proposed in the ghant chart to the left and the narrative schedule to the right represent personal expectations and are subject to change based on recent alterations to the thesis structure. The proposed dates for the five required reviews and the subsequent submission of the thesis document are by and large separated by six week intervals. If at all possible, the intent is to leverage the summer weeks to prepare for the introductory review and the Christmas vacation to prepare for the design development review.

At present, my understanding is that a schedule of requirements will be made available shortly that communicates thesis faculty expectations for student work at each review milestone. Although there is some documentation available, this proposal intentionally omitted these requirements as they are likely to change with the alterations to the thesis structure. What is articulated below is an expectation for where in the schedule the proposed terms of criticism will likely be the most relevant.

Terms of Criticism1. Alignwithconstructivistlearningtheory?2. Co-locatestructuredlearningspaces,unstructured

learningspaces,business,andcivicspacesinamannerthatprovidesnewand/orenrichedlearningopportunities?

3. Increasethevalueandvisibilityoflearning?4. Offernon-educationalentitiesanopportunitytoparticipate

inthelearningprocess?5. Articulatethephysicalboundariesbetweenentities

systematically,consistentlyandtothegreatestbenefitoflearning?

28 August 2012 - Introductory Review

There is a sense that each of the five terms of criticism will be discussed in general terms. More attention is expected to be paid to constructivist learning theory and the concept of articulating boundaries for the benefit of learning. This attention is likely to take the form of an informational presentation to make faculty members, panel members, and guests familiar with these fundamental premises.

p a g e | 4 8

09 October 2012 - Preliminary Review

Again, the expectation is to review the terms of criticism generally, but the focus of the conversation will rest on conceptual development. As such, the expectation for the terms of criticism is to elaborate on the co-location of program elements and the impact on the value and visibility of learning from a site and spatial relationship perspective.

20 November 2012 - Schematic Design

The schematic design review represents a shift in focus from concept-level thinking to systems-level thinking. At this stage, there is an expectation to understand all major building systems and an architectural expression as an integrated design. All five terms of criticism will likely be revisited, but attention expects to be on the physical articulations of boundaries between program elements of different user groups.

15 January 2013 - Design Development

The design development review represents the documentation component of the process. Intense focus will be placed on the technical solutions for specific building components including wall and floor assemblies, MEP/FP coordination, and materials selections among others. If successful, all five terms of criticism will be satisfied.

26 February 2013 - Final Presentation

The final presentation is the opportunity to communicate the project and the underlying process in its entirety. Selected illustrations, models, and documentation will attempt to convey the thesis and the five terms of criticism to the greatest extent possible.

26 March 2013 - Submission of Thesis Document

No panel convened. The thesis document will serve as the permanent record of the process undertaken and the work produced.

s c h e d u l e

p a g e | 4 9

p a r t I

QUALIFICATIONS OF REVIEW PANELWhat follows are the professional qualifications of those selected for the review panel. It should be noted that MEP/FP engineering consultants are not present and further exploration is necessary over the summer to fill these critical roles. It should also be noted that not every panel member has submitted their curriculum vitae and that every effort will be made to collect these prior to the preliminary review. The panel members include:

student: Jason G. Booneadvisor: Peter Martin - Principal, Area4Designclient: Heidi Black - Former Director of Capital Projects*specialist: D. Paul Moore, AIA - Associate, DRA*structural: Michael Malenfant, PE - AECOM*MEP/FP: Vacantcritic: Paul S. Brown, AIA, LEED AP - Principal, Sole Proprietorcritic: Essa Ahmed, LEED AP. - Designer, Prellwitz Chilinskicritic: Catherine Miller, M.Arch - Designer, DRAcritic: Amy Wheeler - Upper School Director, Beaver Country Day*critic: Melissa Demers, M.Arch - Designer, Insight Architecture*

* Curriculum vitae still required.

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s

p a g e | 5 0

q u a l i f i c a t i o n s

Peter Martin Principal Education Active Registrations School of Architecture, Leicester, UK ---Diploma of Architecture, 1975 Oxford Polytechnic, UK--- Master of Urban Design, 1978 Lay Dharma Leadership Certificate, University of the West, Los Angeles, CA, 2010 NCARB/Architecture, 1986, Massachusetts Architect License, 1986 Massachusetts Construction Supervisor License, 2007 Partial List of Projects Peter Martin Architect/area4design---2009ÑPresent

¥ Llewellyn House, St. George Island, FL ¥ Daily Catch Restaurant, Boston, Massachusetts ¥ Architectural Services, Fertility Solutions Clinic, Dedham, MA ¥ Graphic Design Services for Fertility Solutions, Dedham, MA ¥ Construction Observation, Cascade Park, Tallahassee, FL ¥ Tallahassee History Fence, Cascade Park, Tallahassee, Florida ¥ Construction Administration, Palmer Senior Center, Palmer, MA ¥ Rui Martins Residence, Cambridge, MA ¥ Design Build, Holloway Residence, Bolton, MA

Carr Lynch Sandell, Inc., Principal, 2001 Ð 2009

¥ Project Urban Designer/Manager for Cascade Park, Tallahassee, FL ¥ Project Urban Designer/Architect for development at Eastbourne Lodge, Newport, RI ¥ Project Architect for development at Marina Bay, Quincy, MA ¥ Project Urban Designer for design guidelines, Cohasset, MA ¥ Project Manager, North Point Park, Cambridge, MA ¥ Project Architect, Bush Terminal Park Master Plan and park buildings, Brooklyn, NY ¥ Project Architect, Mixed-Use Development - Office/Housing, Raleigh, North Carolina; ¥ Project Urban Designer/Manager, Sonesta Beach Resort Master Plan, Southampton,

Bermuda

¥ Project Architect/Manager, South Road Housing Development, Sonesta Beach Resort, Southampton, BermudaProject Architect/Manager, Boat Bay Housing Development, Sonesta Beach Resort, Southampton, Bermuda.

Carr, Lynch and Sandell, Inc., Senior Associate, 1999 Ð 2001

¥ Project Architect/Designer, Lookout Farm Master Plan Museum and Exhibition, Natick, MA

¥ Project Urban Designer, Glen Cove Water Front, Glen Cove, NY ¥ Project Architect/Manager, Office Space - @Stake Corporation, Cambridge, MA

Independent Consultant, 2000 Ð 2001

¥ Design/Build and Installation Arecibo Observatory (Cornell University), development of exterior exhibition program, Arecibo, Puerto Rico

¥ Design/Build and Installation of four large interactive sculptures for Parque de los Ninos, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Zalisk Martin Associates, Design Principal of Exhibit Design Company, 1989 Ð 1999

¥ Gateway Magnet Schools - Exhibit Program, St. Louis, MO ¥ Genetics Gallery and Environment and Ecology Gallery, St. Louis Science Center, St.

Louis, MO ¥ Health Gallery, The Science Place, Dallas, TX ¥ American Airlines Museum, Fort Worth, TX ¥ Museum of Science and Technology, Master Plan and Design of whole museum exhibition

program, Syracuse, NY ¥ Luci and Desi Museum, Jamestown, NY (museum celebrating work on Lucille Ball and

Desi Arnaz); ¥ Environment Gallery and Situation Room Interactive Theater, Great Lakes Science Center,

Cleveland, OH ¥ Physics Gallery Ð Light and Electricity, Arizona Science Center (indoor/outdoor), Phoenix,

AZ ¥ Whitaker Center for Arts and Science, Master Plan and Design of Exhibition Program and

Traveling Exhibition "Bodies in Motion," Harrisburg, PA ¥ Arecibo Observatory Visitors' Center, Master Plan and Exhibition Program

(indoor/outdoor), Arecibo, Puerto Rico ¥ Jimmy Fund Ð Dana Faber Cancer Institute, various exhibits including Ted Williams

Gallery, Boston, MA ¥ Various architectural projects including: Seats, Cambridge, MA, a store for Charrette

Corporation; Historic renovation and extensive remodeling of a residence, including furniture design, in Louisburg Square, Boston, MA; and the development of residences new, remodeled, and restored in Concord, MA.

¥ Robin Cook Residence, historic renovation Louisburg Square, Boston, MA ¥ Eberle Residence, Concord, MA

Independent Contractor, 1986 Ð 1989 ¥ Krent Paffett Associates, Consultant, Lead Designer, Museum of Science and Technology,

interactive science exhibit, Bridgeport, CT ¥ Lead Designer, Virginia Air and Space Museum Master Plan, Hampton Roads, VA ¥ Interior Designer, restaurants for Roman Delight Pizza (15-20 restaurants); ¥ Construction Supervisor, Bay Bank Harvard, Harvard Square branch, remodeling,

Cambridge, MA ¥ Building Contractor, historic renovations of homes in Concord, MA and ¥ Design of various architectural projects in Concord, Lexington, Chelmsford, Wellesley and

Cambridge, MA Carr Lynch Associates, 1982 Ð 1986

¥ Project Construction Administrator, landscape architecture, Lowell State Heritage Park, Lowell, MA

¥ Project Manager, Urban Designer, Reno downtown development, $8,000,000 urban design improvements, Reno, NV

¥ Project Manager, Urban Designer, Tennessee River Park, Master Plan of 20 mile stretch of Tennessee River through design development, and for preliminary three waterfront parks and six miles of linking river edge trails, Chattanooga, TN

¥ Project Construction Administrator, Landscape Architecture, landscape improvements for Franklin Fields public housing project, Boston, MA

¥ Project Architect, Master Plan for pier with Children's Museum Master Plan, St. Petersburg, FL

¥ Project Manager, Planning, Master Plan for Chelsea Soldiers Home, Chelsea, MA ¥ Project Designer/Manager, design guidelines, Hanscom Field Airport, Bedford, MA.

The Architects Collaborative, 1980 Ð 1982

¥ Project Construction Administration, complete interior renovation of four historic residential structures at Monson State Hospital; MA

¥ Project Architect, overseeing team to create design development and construction documents for the following: Long Island Jewish Hospital, $40,000,000 wing, NY

¥ Temple University Hospital, $88,000,000 tower. Philadelphia, PA ¥ Project Manager, 100-room hotel, University of Baghdad, Iraq.

Maguire and Murray Richmond Survey, 1976 Ð 1977

¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Luxemore House, Kings School, Canterbury, Kent, England. New 50 bed dormitory building with 3 staff apartments sited in historic cathedral precinct, Canterbury, UK

¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Day Boys House, Kings School, Canterbury, Kent, England. New Day Boys House with two cellar level science labs sited in Mint Yard, cathedral precincts Canterbury, UK

¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Galpins House, Kings School, Canterbury, UK. Conversion of historic refectory building into student dormitory providing additional two levels in existing volume.

(* Work published in a special issue of Architectural Review devoted to the King's School Development).

Other Work: ¥ Quiniquennial surveys on behalf of the Church of England for various historic churches in

London, UK ¥ Project coordinator for ongoing restoration at Lincoln Cathedral, Lincoln, UK

(Maguire and Murray were "Surveyors to the Fabric" for Lincoln Cathedral). Robin Moores Alnutt, Kingston up on Thames, UK, 1976 Ð 1977

¥ Project Architect various bank branch renovations. (Civic Trust Award for bank design, set in historic center of Ashford, Kent, UK)

¥ Project Architect for a new six-story office building, Woking, Surrey,UK Stephen George and Partners, Leicester, UK, 1975-1976

¥ Project Architect of a fifty unit public housing project; Leicester, UK ¥ Project Manager/Project Designer conversion and renovation of three large Victorian

houses, providing twelve public housing units, Leicester, UK Stillman and Eastwick-Field - Highbury, London, UK, 1972-1973

¥ Architectural Assistant, apprenticed on various housing, hospital, and school projects - masonry, glazing, and interior cabinet detailing.

Teaching Advanced Studio instructor and thesis advisor, Boston Architectural College. Adjunct professor at Rhode Island School of Design. Visiting critic at Rhode Island School of Design, Boston Architectural College, MIT. GED, ABE and ESOL teacher at the Community Learning Center, Cambridge, MA

Essa Ahmed, LEED AP86 Prospect Street, Somerville, MA 02143 Cell: (617) 515-0420 eMail: [email protected]

EDUCATION

Jan 07 – May 11 Master of Architecture / Boston Architectural College, Boston (USA) Sep 98 – Jul 03 B.Sc. Architectural Engineering [Public Buildings] / Alexandria University (Egypt)

EMPLOYMENT

Project Designer Prellwitz Chilinski Associates, Cambridge, USA Dec 10 – Present Architectural Designer Lozano, Baskin, and Associates, Watertown, USA Jan 10 – Dec 10 Architectural Designer STV Incorporated, Boston, USA Jun 07 – Nov 09 Architect NHEC (Najeeb AlHumaidhi Engineering Consultancy), Kuwait Jan 04 – Dec 06Architect HEADS (Salah Hareedy .PhD), Alexandria, Egypt Oct 2003 Intern Architect HEADS (Salah Hareedy .PhD), Alexandria, Egypt Summer 2002 Free-lance Saboor (Salah Hegab .PhD), Cairo, Egypt Free-lance Memphis, Kuwait/Canada

TRAINING/CERTIFICATIONS

Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED 2.1) Accredited Professional; (GBCI) (2009) Construction Safety & Health; Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) (2009) Project Management; Advanced Management Institute (AMI) for Architecture and Engineering (2008) Mastering 3-D Max R5; VAT Educational Center, Alexandria, Egypt (2003)

TECHNICAL SKILLS

Fulfilled NCARB/IDP requirements. Proficient in Revit; AutoCAD; 3Ds Max; Adobe Creative Suite; and SketchUp.

MEMBERSHIPS

American Society of Architects, Boston Society of Architects; Associate (3/08/#30492086) Egyptian Engineering Syndicate, (9/03 /#18/3544) Kuwait Society of Engineers (1/05/#1773)

OTHER SKILLS & INTERESTS

Other Languages : Arabic. Design Related Hobbies : Animation& Cinematography, web designing, photography and sketching. Hobbies : Swimming, hiking/camping/mountaineering, running, rowing, and traveling.

P a u l S . B r o w n , A I A3 2 G r e e n w o o d A v e . , N e e d h a m , M A 0 2 4 9 2

C e l l : ( 7 8 1 ) 6 4 0 - 7 4 1 3 e m a i l : [email protected]

Registered Professional Architect; Massachusetts and Maine.

LEED Accredited Professional. MCPPO Certified.

EDUCATION

1974 - 1978 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. School of Architecture.

Degree: Bachelor of Environmental Design (Architecture). 3.25 GPA.

One semester of foreign study. Elective course emphasis in English.

1982 - 1985 Boston College. Graduate School of Management (evening MBA program)

24 credit hours completed. 3.25 GPA.

EMPLOYMENT

2001 – Feb. 2012 Project Manager, Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc., Newton, Massachusetts

Public school renovation projects. Responsible for maintaining and improving

client relationships. Design, Construction Documents and Construction

Administration. Firm leadership in the areas of Green/Sustainable Design.

2000 – 2001 Release Manager. Revit Technology Corporation, Waltham, Massachusetts

Software development. Responsible for coordinating the public releases of major

and minor updates to the software product. Management of the release-cycle

schedule, facilitation of weekly release meetings with senior management and

departmental-level managers. The Revit product is an architectural software tool

which was purchased by AutoDesk.

1999 – 2000 Project Manager. Ann Beha Associates, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts

Historic Preservation Architecture; various projects on the east coast USA.

1986 - 1999 Vice President, The Dean Architectural Alliance, Inc. , Boston, Mass.

Project Manager with Dean Tucker Shaw, Inc., 1986 – 1990. Medical projects.

Promoted to Associate and Project Manager at Dean Packard Rafuse, 1990 –

1995. (firm reorganization). Corporate interiors and National Park Service work.

Promoted to Vice President at the Dean Architectural Alliance, 1995-1999. (2nd

firm reorganization) Primary client: Lucent Technologies.

Team leadership in the realization of built designs. Project management and

senior level firm management. Design. Client management on a daily basis.

Direction of firm staff in the design of architectural projects and the production

of construction documents. Writing and reviewing construction specifications.

Management of project budgets and schedules. Communications with clients,

engineering consultants and contractors. Evaluation of building systems

engineering designs. Supervision of computer-aided design and drafting

(CADD) technical staff. Design of complex building-envelope waterproofing

systems. Design of sensitive interventions in historically valuable properties of

National Monument status.

1984 – 1986 Project Manager, King/Warner Associates, Architects. Boston, Mass.

Architectural Project Management on hospital renovation projects.

1982 – 1984 Architectural Project Manager, Facilities Engineering Department

University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts

1978 – 1981 Designer / Drafter; entry-level positions.

William W. Stewart Associates, Inc., St. Louis, MO. 1978 - 1979

The Ritchie Organization (TRO), Boston, MA. 1979 - 1981

Resume

Paul S. Brown, AIA

Page 2 of 2

OTHER

2004 “GREEN DESIGN” (Chapter Co-Author)

Chapter on the general principals of ‘green’ design for school construction,

within the book: “Secondary School Design and Construction”, published by

R.S. Means Corporation.

1981 – 1982 Design Instructor, First Year Architectural Design Studio

The Boston Architectural Center, Boston, MA.

2007 – Present Founder; One Penny Per Mile, Inc.

An environmental non-profit organization with the mission to develop renewable

energy systems and give them away, free, to other educational non-profit

organizations. Financed by penny-per-mile contributions from automobile

owners. www.onepennypermile.org . A registered 501 (c) (3) organization.

This is an 'evenings and weekends' avocation.

2005 - 2006 Massachusetts Sustainable Design Roundtable

Chair; Incentives Work Group. Steering Committee member.

This roundtable led indirectly to the creation of the MA-CHPS standards for

green school design in Massachusetts, and had other indirect beneficial impact.

2004 - 2006 AIA Legislative Affairs Committee

Active committee Member.

1993 – 1996 Community Access Monitor, Mass. Office on Disabilities

Public assistance with state and federal disability access regulations. Volunteer.

1996 Boston Summer Olympics, Feasibility Study

Team leader for development of the four cycling venues for the effort to bring the

2008 summer games to the city of Boston. Pro-Bono volunteer design work.

Computer Skills: Have written some very basic beginner code in C++, and HTML. Very familiar with

the Windows Operating System, and proficient with all standard (Microsoft) office and project

management programs, including MSWord, MSExcel, PowerPoint, and Outlook. Past user of MSProject.

Basic AutoCAD, Sketch-up, and Revit drafting and 3-D modeling capability. Rudimentary Dreamweaver

skills.

2 2 H I G H V I E W A V E N U E • W E S T R O X B U R Y , M A 0 2 1 3 2 P H O N E 6 1 7 . 3 1 2 . 1 8 8 0 • E - M A I L C A T H A R R I S 2 0 0 2 @ Y A H O O . C O M

C A T H E R I N E M I L L E R

OBJECTIVE To be a project manager as I continue to work towards becoming a registered architect.

EDUCATION Masters of Architecture

Boston Architectural College-Boston, MA 2001-2009 Bachelor Of Fine Arts In Interior Design New England School of Art and Design at Suffolk University-Boston, MA 1996-1999

WORK EXPERIENCE

Drummey Rosane Anderson Inc.-Newton, MA January 2006-present Intern Architect/Designer Experience in all phases of projects including: schematic design, construction

administration, site and building analysis, project cost and feasibility studies, material selection and specifications, programming, master planning, model making; both traditional and computer generated, and rendering perspectives, floor plans, and site plans.

Experience working on town-wide facility evaluation and master plan reports. Provide a supporting role at community meetings and design workshops. Represent DRA at several job briefings.

Integrated Design Group-Boston, MA February 2004-September 2005 Intern Architect Worked on schematic designs, design development, Construction Documents, and Construction Administration. Developed presentation boards. Established office standards for CAD and project file structure. Directed materials library department.

ABAX Architecture PC-Boston, MA April 2001-September 2003 Intern Architect Worked on schematic designs, design development, and construction documents. Researched and implemented codes including ADA and MAAB. Worked on space planning, custom casework design, and fenestration detailing.

Prudential Prime Properties-Boston, MA January 1999-April 2001 Real Estate Agent. Acted as relocation facilitator for rental properties. Recruited rental and sales property accounts.

COMPUTER SKILLS AutoCAD · ArchiCAD · Adobe Photoshop · SketchUp · Adobe InDesign Corel DRAW · Corel PHOTO-

p a g e | 6 2

p a g e | 6 3

p a r t I

1. Brubaker , C. William. Planning and Designing Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Brubaker like Woolner is an educational expert and architect. “Planning and Designing Schools” is a broad reference resource that not only describes the evolution of school design in the United States, but also describes the breadth and width of the various planning paradigms leveraged in school design, including those that challenge where the boundary of school is.

2. De Carlo, Giancarlo. “Why/How to Build School Buildings.” Harvard Educational Review: Architecture and Education, Vol. 39 no. 4 (1969): 12-35.

De Carlo’s essay establishes that complaints about the existing paradigm of school design are not new. They power and value of this essay is that De Carlo identifies four critical terms of inquiry. The answers to which challenge the need for traditional educational institutions as the locations for meaningful learning. The essay adds to the body of evidence that schools in isolation possess an inability to represent conditions of the outside world, the place where meaningful learning experiences are possible.

3. Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report. EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010.

This document provides valuable information related to the Seaport Square long range master plan. Among the relevant information are parcel diagrams, proposed building heights, and atmospheric sketches communicating the sense and feel of the neighborhood upon completion of the project.

4. Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. Date of publication unavailable.

This document provides valuable environmental information related to the Seaport Square master plan. Among the more relevant data are detailed wind and solar analyses.

5. Fisher, Thomas R. In the Scheme of Things: Alternative Thinking on the Practice of Architecture. Minneapolis:

b i b l i o g r a p h y

p a g e | 6 4

University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

In his chapter, Monocultures and Multiculturalism, Fisher makes the connection between ecology and the built environment. Fisher argues that diverse built environments benefit in the same way that diverse ecosystems benefit. His argument will serves as a motivating metaphor for the reimagining of architectural boundaries related to school.

6. Fort Point Channel Study Committee. “Designation of the Fort Point Channel Landmark District.” 2009.

This document was crafted to designate the Fort Point Channel District. Its value lies in the information related to the history and original intent of the neighborhood.

7. Graves, Ben E. School Ways: The Planning and Design of America’s Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.

Graves book in most respects is a predecessor to Brubaker’s “Planning and Designing Schools.” The two, in fact, were contemporaries in the same firm, Perkins and Will. The value of Graves book for this research is that he establishes a list of emerging trends in education among which he lists community schools. Although these emerging trends were identified in 1993, the list can be validated with more recent publications. The idea will be to link these observed trends to the need for an architectural expression of these ideas.

8. Harr, Sharon, ed. Schools for Cities: Urban Strategies. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2000.

This collection of essays communicate the outcomes of a conference titled “ Schools as Catalysts for Community Development held in Chicago in 2000. The collection will serve in three capacities. First the collection will serve as background to the evolution of the American High Schools. Next, it will establish several of the common obstacles impeding the execution of schools as a collection of diverse use groups with intentionally crafted architectural boundaries.

9. Hertzberger, Herman . Space and Learnin. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2008.


p a g e | 6 5

p a r t I

Two chapters in Hertzberger’s serve to link Thomas R. Fisher and the American High School. In chapter three, Hertzberger identifies several design principles and programme components that establish “The School as the Micro-City.” In lay terms, he establishes the high school as a microcosm of the greater built environment. In chapter four, Hertzberger establishes the converse, “The City as Macro-School.”

10. Kahler, Gert. “The School in the City or the School as City.” Metropolis: Education 3 (2009): 85-95.

Kahler’s essay derives from a European perspective where educational history is much older than in the United States. This piece examines the differences between a school positioned geometrically within a city and a school as a metaphorical city. The key argument states that architects continue to create a representation of schools as cities where corridors resemble city streets and where common areas serve as town squares despite the fact that these characteristics do not and cannot perform as their non-metaphorical counterparts. The argument is that schools should exist within the city, at least, as a contributing member of the greater community. The essay serves as contemporary evidence from international designers supporting high schools as something other than educational facilities that attempt to exist as imitations of the city.

11. Lackney, Jeffrey A. Educational Facilities: The Impact and Role of the Physical Environment of the School on Teaching, Learning and Educational Outcomes. Milwaukee: Publications in Architecture and Urban Planning, 1994.

Debate continues to this day about whether or not the physical environment plays a significant role in educational outcomes, whether or not the building affects learning. In Chapter Six of the publication, Lackey evaluates several models that contribute bodies of knowledge to this debate. His claim is that no one model had yet reflected the complexity of the educational environment. His evaluation of these models and subsequent development of a proposed comprehensive model of educational environments makes it possible to evaluate the success of a built environment, as well as the many other complex variables associated with educational environments, on specific desired outcomes. This complex evaluation tool


p a g e | 6 6

will serve as a metric against which the project in this proposal might be measured by researchers.

12. Locker, Frank. “Visioning Study Report”. February, 2011.

This report was conducted as a consultancy to Drummey Rosane Anderson for Randolph Public Schools as part of a district-wide master plan scope of services. My role in the project was as project manager directly working with Dr. Locker. The focus of the study was to identify those characteristics that exemplified 21st century learning and to define the educational facilities capable of supporting those characteristics. It has value for this thesis as a benchmark of user input and corroborating evidence of the underlying thoughts of the thesis and its program.

13. Moore, Gary T. and Jeffrey A. Lackney. Educational Facilities for the Twenty-first Century: Research Analysis and Design Patterns. Milwaukee: Publications for Architecture and Urban Planning Research, 1994.

Chapter six of Moore and Lackney’s larger work on twenty-first century educational facilities identifies “Twenty-seven Patterns for Design of American High Schools.” Among them is “School as a Community Center.” The argument made in the chapter is one that goes beyond simple economy of schools and shared use of key spaces before and after school hours. It suggests that the school in the community has a role to play in building community members’ senses of belonging.

14. Pizziconi, Andrea Christie. “New Urban Strategies”. UrbanLand, March, 2006.

This article by an international developer proposes a business model where large real estate developments may benefit from educational entities as long term tenants. It substantiates the program in this proposal as a viable business.

15. Places and Things for Experimental Schools. New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. and Experimental Schools, 1972.

Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc. was one of the premier research institutions for educational facilities in the 1970s


p a g e | 6 7

p a r t I

in the United States. The Experimental Schools program was one research program conducted for the United States Office of Education, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Although dated, chapters five and six identify design principles for several varieties of what were termed “experimental schools”. These precedents corroborate the value in an architectural relationships between schools and communities. Unlike many of the other literature supporting my argument, this publication contains several graphics that may prove useful in illustrating my argument.

16. Woolner, Pamela . The Design of Learning Spaces. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010.

Woolner is a Research Associate at the Center for Learning and Teaching at New Castle University in the United Kingdom. If this were a court room trial, she would be called as an expert witness on educational design features and their impact on learning. Her personal research as well as the research cited in her book establishes a design evolution of High Schools, provides evidence that design principles impact learning, and communicates evidence that architectural relationships between the high school and the community can be mutually beneficial.

17. Wallis, Claudia. “How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century”. Time Magazine, December 2006.

Wallis’s article sets the stage for the need for this thesis and an architectural project in response. In the article, Wallis delivers a version of the Rip Van Winkle tale to illustrate how out dated our American educational system really is.


p a g e | 6 8


p a g e | 6 9

p a r t I I o v e r v i e w

Thesis Program Table of Contents

69 overview

70 site description & analysis

88 codes

90 cultural context

91 informational context

93 precedents

99 mission & goals

105 cost evaluation

This part of the proposal expands upon the program section from part one. Information contained in this part is intended to ground the project in site, cultural, and informational context and to establish a framework of issues and goals necessary for success. It should be noted that for ease of review, some data and information is repeated from section one. Every effort, however, has been made to limit these occurrences and, instead, to provide a deeper and richer understanding of the factors affecting the project.

p a g e | 7 0

s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n

SITE DESCRIPTIONThe mixed use program at the heart of the project requires a site that:

• Is able to host a wide range of use groups• Already possess a diverse set of use groups, but still

needs core elements• Accessible to public transit, vehicular and pedestrian

circulation routes• Sized to accommodate interior and landscaped

environments• Currently un- or under-developed

These characteristics acknowledge that this one project has an opportunity to contribute to its surrounding context in a meaningful way and that it’s contribution has limits. Looking for sites with a richness of land use only adds opportunity to the learning environment.

The selected site, see in yellow to the right, is located on a currently undeveloped parcel in an area of Boston named the Innovation District. This area is more commonly referred to as the Seaport District and contains the old Fort Point Channel neighborhood, the Moakley Federal Courthouse, the Institute for Contemporary Art, the Seaport World Trade Center, and the Boston Convention Center. For site context photos, refer to Part I, pages 14-16

The site plan to the right communicates a long term master plan for the area. Dark grey areas represent existing buildings. Light grey areas indicate proposed buildings. The proposed sight for this project lies at the heart of this new development. Maps, illustrations, and diagrams on the subsequent pages identify each proposed parcel in the master plan, communicate expected uses, and give a sense of the vision for the neighborhood.

It should be noted that the master plan identifies the proposed site as planned open space and that this project intends to honor that plan by providing for outdoor community space on the ground floor. More poetically, however, there is every intent for this project to represent a moment of relief in the relentless grid from the planned building heights adjacent to this parcel. In many ways, the expectation is to maintain the spirit of the master plan while contributing something new and valuable to the neighborhood.

city context

neighborhood context

state context

p a g e | 7 1

p a r t I I s i t e d e s c r i p t i o n

p a g e | 7 3


natural and constructed

0’0 50’ 100’00 200’20 400’


Children’sWharf Park

Children’sMuseum

Melcher St.

Fort PointChannel District

Slee

per

St.

Old

Sl

eep

er

St

.

Farn

swo

rth

S

t.

Tho

mso

n

St.

Still

ing

s

St.

‘A’

St

.

Congress St.

Summer St.

Autumn LaneStillings St. Extension

Congress St.Hotel

Bo

sto

n

Wh

arf

Rd

.

Har

bo

r

St.

Har

bo

r

Way

N.

Har

bo

r

St.

Pier

St.

Ext

ensi

on

Fan

P

ier

Bo

ule

vard

East

S

ervi

ce

Rd.

‘B’

St.

Congress St. Bridge

Old Northern Avenue Bridge


Seaport Hill

‘K’ Open Corner

L5 Corner Square

P PlazaN

Stair

Active Open Space

CourthouseSquare

‘M’ Way

Seaport Square Green

Seaport Boulevard

Northern Avenue

MoakleyFederal Court House

Primary Connection

Secondary Connection

Pedestrian Access within Building

Local Connection

Cultural within Project Site

Urban Spaces

Project Area

prepared by:

Urban Open Spaces

DEVELOPMENTWS

Figure 1-7

The aerial photo in the margin to the right and the figure below communicate the extend of natural areas in the neighborhood. The existing state today has limited open space with some green areas along the harbor walk North of Moakely Courthouse, adjacent to the Children’s Museum, and a small park immediately East of One Marina Park Drive. The master plan calls for an open space, Seaport Square Green, on the parcel for this project. The intent is for the project to honor this intent by providing outdoor public space on the ground level and to be the moment of relief in the size, scale, and massing of the adjacent buildings in the relentless grid.


p a g e | 7 4


shadow studies

prepared by:

Figure 4.2-1

Shadow DuringJune 21at 9:00 am

DEVELOPMENTWS

The shadow studies on this and subsequent pages were prepared as part of an environmental impact study for the Seaport Square master plan. The proposed parcel for this project is at the center of the diagrams located on parcel ‘F’. Analysis of these diagrams reveals that the proposed parcel is likely to be in shadow from adjacent buildings for much of the day all year round. It should also be noted that although no analysis of the impact of this project is included, the building height and massing of the proposed building are such that little or no additional shadowing is expected. Confirmation of this suspicion will occur early the thesis review sequence beginning with supplemental information at the preliminary review.

8 Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-29.

p a g e | 7 5


shadow studies

prepared by:

Figure 4.2-2

Shadow DuringJune 21at 12:00 noon

DEVELOPMENTWS


p a g e | 7 6


shadow studies

prepared by:

Figure 4.2-3

Shadow DuringJune 21at 3:00 pm

DEVELOPMENTWS


p a g e | 7 7


shadow studies

prepared by:

Figure 4.2-4

Shadow DuringJune 21at 6:00 pm

DEVELOPMENTWS


p a g e | 7 8


shadow studies

prepared by:

Figure 4.2-23

Shadow DuringDecember 21at 9:00 am

DEVELOPMENTWS


p a g e | 7 9


shadow studies

prepared by:

Figure 4.2-24

Shadow DuringDecember 21at 12:00 noon

DEVELOPMENTWS


p a g e | 8 0


shadow studies

prepared by:

Figure 4.2-25

Shadow DuringDecember 21at 3:00 pm

DEVELOPMENTWS


p a g e | 8 1


parking & transportation

DEVELOPMENTWS

prepared by:Howard/Stein-Hudson

Associates, Inc.

Figure 2.1-10

Existing Off-Street Parking in the Study Area

2

1

3

5

4

GF

E

K

J

IH

B C

D

L M

AO

P

N

Q

Parking LotParking Garage

T

R

W V

S

6

7U

CONGRESS ST.

SEAPORT BLVD.

OLD CO

LONY RD.

BROADWAY

DO

RC

HESTER

AVE.

SUMMER ST.

SUMMER ST.

A ST

.

D ST.

L ST

.

D ST.

1/4-mile Radius

2

1

3

5

4

GF

E

K

J

IH

B C

D

L M

AO

P

N

Q

Parking LotParking Garage

T

R

W V

S

6

7U

CONGRESS ST.

SEAPORT BLVD.

OLD CO

LONY RD.

BROADWAY

DO

RC

HESTER

AVE.

SUMMER ST.

SUMMER ST.

A ST

.

D ST.

L ST

.

D ST.

1/4-mile Radius

N


p a g e | 8 2





Children’sMuseum


Slee

per

St.

Farn

swo

rth

S

t.

Tho

mso

n

St.

Still

ing

s

St.

‘A’

St

.

Congress St.

Summer St.

Autumn LaneSeaport WorldTrade Center

Bo

sto

n

Wh

arf

Rd.

Har

bo

r

St.

. t S ro

br aH .

N

Har

bor

wal

k

nois

net xE . t S r ei P

dr avelu

oB r ei P

naF

.d

R eci vr eS tsaE

. t S ’B‘

Congress St. Bridge



P Plaza

Active OpenSpace

Stillings St. Extension ‘M’ Way

yaW r

obr a

H


CourthouseSquare

Seaport Boulevard

Northern Avenue


N

Old

Sl

eep

er

St

.

Parking

Service/Loading

Project Area

PS

P

P

P

P

PPPP

P

PS

S

SS

S

SS

S

PS Service/Loading

Parking

DEVELOPMENTWS


Associates, Inc.

Figure 2.1-11

Site Plan Showing Proposed Parking and Service/Loading Entrances



Children’sMuseum


Slee

per

St.

Farn

swo

rth

S

t.

Tho

mso

n

St.

Still

ing

s

St.

‘A’

St

.

Congress St.

Summer St.

Autumn LaneSeaport WorldTrade Center

Bo

sto

n

Wh

arf

Rd.

Har

bo

r

St.

. t S ro

br aH .

N

Har

bor

wal

k

nois

net xE . t S r ei P

dr avelu

oB r ei P

naF

.d

R eci vr eS tsaE

. t S ’B‘

Congress St. Bridge



P Plaza

Active OpenSpace

Stillings St. Extension ‘M’ Way

yaW r

obr a

H


CourthouseSquare

Seaport Boulevard

Northern Avenue


N

Old

Sl

eep

er

St

.

Parking

Service/Loading

Project Area

PS

P

P

P

P

PPPP

P

PS

S

SS

S

SS

S

PS Service/Loading

Parking


p a g e | 8 3




3,647 3,155

1,942

998 376 188

987 2,994 4,794 6,020 6,198 6,375

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Existing Lots 1 2 3 4 5 6

Tota

l Par

king

Spa

ces

Avai

labl

e

Phase

Lots vs. Garage Parking by Phase

in Lots In Garages

DEVELOPMENTWS


Associates, Inc.

Figure 2.1-12

Summary of Lots vs. Garage by Seaport Square Phase

p a g e | 8 4



walking distance diagram

5 min.

10 min.

p a g e | 8 5

p a r t I I

Summer Street

Congress Street

Summer Street Bridge

Congress Street Bridge


Northern Avenue Bridge

Congress St

D St

reet

East

Ser

vice

Roa

d

B St

reet

Seap

ort L

ane

Wor

ld T

rade

Cen

ter A

venu

e

Bost

on W

harf

Roa

d

Harb

or S

treet

Autumn Lane

Seaport Boulevard

Northern Avenue

Fort

Poin

t Cha

nnel

Boston Inner Harbor

Waterfront

Still

ings

Stre

et

Thom

pson

Stre

et

Farn

swor

th S

treet

Slee

per S

treet

Cour

t Hou

se W

ay

Fan

Pier

Bou

leva

rd

Pier

Stre

et

Cove Street

Promenade

Wes

t Ser

vice

Roa

d

A St

reet

Sout

h Bo

ston

Byp

ass

Road

ICA

BostonConvention

and Exhibition

Center

Rose

F

K

enne

dy G

reen

way

Moakley Federal Courthouse

Children’sMuseum

Vent Building

Boston Tea PartyShip and Museum

Hospitality

Commercial / Mixed Use

Residential / Mixed Use

Green / Open Space

PREDOMINANT USES:

Retail / Entertainment

Project Area

Parcel E

Parkingar

0 100' 200' 400'N

Education / Institution / Cultural

prepared by:

Existing &ProposedLand Use of Surroundings

DEVELOPMENTWS

Figure 1-45

BCECExpansion

Figure 1-21


p a g e | 8 6

The image to the left depict the existing density of pedestrian users near the proposed site. The images were taken around noon on a spring Sunday. Image one demonstrates that even without the master plan completed, Seaport Boulevard, with its forty foot wide sidewalks, serves as the main pedestrian corridor from downtown Boston to the attractions and amenities East of the proposed site. Based on the studies produced for the City of Boston, this pedestrian traffic along Seaport Boulevard is only expected to increase. Image two, by contrast, depicts the existing pedestrian condition along Boston Wharf Road looking North. Although this area provides ample opportunity for parking, pedestrians arriving by car utilize Boston Wharf Road as the means to get to Seaport Boulevard. The significant difference between the two is that the master plan development expects much higher pedestrian traffic along Boston Wharf Road than currently present. In fact, it is expected to be the main North South route between Fan Pier and Congress Street.

The third image depicts a portion of the Harbor Walk Trail currently under development. Although the image shows temporary power poles and patchy grass, this path is required by law to provide members of the general public pedestrian access to the water’s edge. In fact, just to the right of the image, a new marina is just visible that will provide the opportunity for pedestrians to actually come into contact with the water. All of this information suggests that during and upon build out, both the Fan Pier and the Seaport Square neighborhoods will be lively places with lots of pedestrian activity.

Image four on this page is representative of traces left by current users as the neighborhood is still in development. On the day this image was taken, I witnessed an employee of One Marina Park Drive extinguish her cigarette in a planter that bounds the new green space just North of the proposed site. Upon closer inspection, the image reveals that this behavior was not new, but rather this person, and likely others, have been using this corner of the planter in this way for some time. I would characterize the behavior as an expression of enough appreciation for the beauty of the new park not to little the grounds, but not so much appreciation as to not hide the debris under the foliage.

1

2

3

4

p a g e | 8 7


site observations

The images on this page are related to site documentation in that many of them represent visages of what once was. Most of the images express a material quality that may be worth expressing in the material palette of the proposed project.

Image five depicts a cobble stone street from when the Boston Wharf Company occupied the entire neighborhood. There is a smoothness and a durable quality that may have some value. Image six depicts the scale of the streets in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood. The combination of the relatively narrow street, the modesty of the five story structures on either side, the wide of the sidewalk and the rhythm of the tree canopy that is pleasant. Image seven depicts the interior of a former shipping warehouse now converted to a local art gallery. Much like the street scape outside, the combination of the wide open space, the heavy timber construction, exposed mechanical system, and volume of the space is a warm and pleasant one. These features may be worth pursuing as architectural language as the project develops over the next year.

SummaryThe proposed site is currently a fenced off asphalt parking lot, a parcel amongst 23 acres of contiguous parking. The key attractiveness of this parcel is that it possess the characteristics and qualities identified as necessary for the success of the project, namely that zoning permits a mixed use facility and the both the neighborhood and the project can benefit from one another. Other key considerations include the easy access to pedestrian and vehicular circulation as well as public transportation networks. One of the terms of criticism is an assessment of the projects ability to improve the value and visibility of learning. These qualities offer the opportunity to be successful in this regard.

5

6

7

p a g e | 8 8

CODESThe image to the right depicts the Boston Redevelopment Zoning Map for the Fort Point Harbor Front. The proposed parcel is subject to restrictions and guidelines for the Planned Development Area (PDA) including certain height restrictions. The parcel dimensions, set-back restrictions, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements are provided in Part II, page 72. Zoning codes permit an FAR of 4.25 and a maximum building height of 255’. Although those restrictions equate to an allowable area of approximately 224,000 GSF and approximately 17 stories, the proposed project falls well short of these restrictions at 200,000 GSF and five stories.

In addition to zoning requirements, the project will be subject to several building codes. A partial list of these codes is below. A more comprehensive list will be developed during the early phases of the review process.

CMR 781 - Massachusetts Building Code, 8th EditionMAAB - Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, most recentIECC - International Energy Conservation Code, most recent

The Massachusetts Building Code, 8th addition adopts the 2009 International Building Code and references several other trade specific regulations and compliance tests. Of all the regulations, special attention will be given to the MAAB. The program has at its heart an educational facility. As such, every component of the facility must be accessible.

Also of note, is the fact that the building is intentionally mixed use, but with the desire to make certain components of differing uses open and connected to one another. Current codes require varying degrees of fire separation between use groups. This has the potential to significantly impact the design strategies adopted to fulfill the thesis.

c o d e s

p a g e | 8 9

p a r t I I c o d e s

p a g e | 9 0

CULTURAL CONTEXTAs mentioned previously in this document, the nearest existing neighbor with any historical or cultural context in the Fort Point Channel District. Many of the site context photos shown in Part 1, pages 14 through 16 identify the architectural character present. In addition to these photos on this page were identified in a study report to designate the Fort Point Channel neighborhood as a landmark district.15

Other important buildings in the neighborhood include the Moakley Federal Courthouse, the Boston Children’s Museum, the newly completed One Marina Park Drive, and the Institute for Contemporary Art. Still others of note that are slightly farther away include the Boston Convention Center and the World Trade Center Complex. Each of these existing buildings have the possibility to influence the character and design choices of this project.

Although the project will be influenced by these architectural considerations, the greater cultural issue is one of changing what ‘school’ looks and feels like. By placing this project in a geographic location dedicated to innovation and the advancement of ideas, this thesis has the greatest opportunity to overcome the cultural inertia of more than a century of the same educational facility strategy. By providing students with the opportunity to see the very places where learning has value, there is a real possibility of shifting the culture of education into the twenty-first century.

c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t

cornices. The buildings form a handsome and harmonious group. An architecturally similar building once stood on the vacant lot on this block.

Fig. 4. Example of tripartite façade, with a base, arcaded midsection, and “capital” top floor accentuated with a brick dentil cornice. Photo of 312-320 Summer Street, c. 1905.

Tripartite façades continued to be widely used in the district during the early 20th

century for Stylized Classical style buildings. However, buildings in this freer interpretation of the Classical style adhered to the tripartite form less strictly, just as their Classically-inspired details came to be more streamlined and interpreted in imaginative new ways.

Also associated with the Classical Revival style in the FPCLD was the use of light-colored brick, because light-colored walls resembled stone. An interest in light-colored exterior materials took hold in American building in the late 1880s.At about this time, New York architects began to order bricks that were not red.A building considered seminal in the fashion for non-red brick was the Telephone and Telegraph Building on Cortlandt Street in New York City (Cyrus Eidlitz, 1886-1887). The novel color of the brick in this building was so influential that other designers simply specified “Telephone” brick when ordering material for their buildings. The Goelet Building, previously mentioned as an exemplary tripartite elevation, was also notable for its tan brick walls and windows framed with brick and terra cotta in contrasting light colors. When the architects of this building designed the new Boston Public Library, around the time the Goelet was being completed, they used buff-colored Roman brick for the library courtyard walls.

25

Fig. 3. Romanesque Revival, American Railway Express Building, 343 Congress Street, photographed c. 1900 (fifth floor added later).

Alterations have been made to this building over time. Early in its existence, a fourth floor was added and in 1936 its interior structure was rebuilt to convert it to use as a parking garage. Probably at that time, the central section of the roof parapet was rebuilt in the form of a pediment to give the building what must have been considered an updated look. Parapets of a similar design were commonly seen during that period on commercial buildings and on both large parking garages and private home garages. In a recent conversion of the building to office use, the present fifth floor was added. Set back from the main façade with a broad overhanging roof and multi-paned glazing across its width, this section reads visually as a separate element. Alterations to the ground floor include the opening of a new centralized main entrance and making floor length windows out of most other openings. Projections added at the ground floor as part of the adaptive reuse have hidden some architectural detail, but appear to be easily removable and not permanently damaging.

Another early example of the Romanesque Revival style is the Putnam & Company Building, 326-330 Congress Street (#12). Built in 1888, this six-story, pinkish-red brick building has brick corbelling at the roof parapet and double and triple windows set at the centers of recessed panels. Corbelled segmental arches form the tops of the panels at the second through fourth floors. At the fifth and sixth floors, the panels are rectangular with rockface brownstone lintels and decorated with ornamental brickwork. Foliate terra cotta tiles are an important decorative element: these low-relief square tiles are placed at regular intervals along the pilasters and above the windows in the arched-panel sections. They add subtle detailing to the smooth brick façade, as does the corbelling of the arched

21

Fig. 3. Romanesque Revival, American Railway Express Building, 343Congress Street, photographed c. 1900 (fifth floor added later).

Fig. 4. Example of tripartite façade, with a base, arcaded midsection, and“capital” top floor accentuated with a brick dentil cornice. Photo of 312-320Summer Street, c. 1905.

16 Fort Point Channel Study Committee. “Designation of the Fort Point Channel Landmark District.” 2009.

p a g e | 9 1

p a r t I I i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e x t

INFORMATIONAL CONTEXT

Client ProfileThe client profile is as unique as the project itself. A mixed use educational facility has little opportunity for long term success, particularly in an urban environment, if the owner of the project is a secondary educational institution. Andrea Christie Pizziconi wrote an article titled New Urban Strategies that outlines a business model that might work for this project. She suggests that educational entities, particularly K-12 entities, lack the business savvy and real estate expertise to manage this kind of model. She suggests, rather that the owner should be a development organization with the educational entity being the primary tenant.16

Pizziconi has researched several examples such as Millenium High School in New York City, which occupies several floors of a high rise office building in the heart of Manhattan. So, to is the expectation for this project. The owner will likely be a large real estate development corporation. Their business model identifies the 480- student charter school as the primary long term tenant and several smaller office based, commercial, or retail tenants. As an added value for the developer, the proposal is to include a small number of residential units presumably for faculty, staff and their families.

InterviewsDevelopment of this thesis and the determination of the program elements contained in this proposal are largely the result of more than a decade in the field of education, educational facility planning, and design. In that time, countless client and user interviews have occurred, research reviewed and conducted, and dozens of field investigations undertaken.

One of the key drivers, however, was a series of client interviews and stakeholder workshops for a currently active project under my supervision. The key insight from students, building principals, parents, teachers, and community members was a desire for a more student-centered environment. In lay terms, these user groups expressed a desire for a model that made learning more valued and visible, that connected learning more intentionally to the real world, and gave private entities an opportunity to contribute to the learning process in real and meaningful ways.16 Pizziconi, Andrea Christie. “New Urban Strategies”. UrbanLand, March, 2006.

p a g e | 9 2

The appendix contains my personal interviews with the building principal and excerpts from the Visioning Report. What follows below are some responses to guided questions posed at a day-long stakeholder workshop.

Whatwillstudentbedoingintheyear2020?

• Facilitatedinternships• Servicelearning• [Takingadvantageof]wideopenspaceslearningspaces• Technologicalcollaboration• In-residencecollaboration[withoneanother]• Eliminationoftraditionalschoolday-bigopeningatmidday• Linkextracurricularwithacademics• Leveragetechnologytether• Makekidsteachers

Howwillthecommunitybeinvolvedinthelearningprocessintheyear2020?

• Volunteerprofessionalexpertiseprovidedbycommunity• Hoststointerns• On-siteimmersion[inprofessionalpractice]• Intentionalrelationship-building[betweenprofessional

communityandeducationalinstitution]-Notjustdumpkidsinworkplace

• Symbioticrelationships[withasmanynon-educationalandpost-secondaryeducationalentitiesaspossible]

• Competency-based-developmentalstages-multi-ageatHSandbeyondageeighteen16

i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t e x t

16 Locker. “Visioning”. January 2012, 3.

p a g e | 9 3

p a r t I I p r e c e d e n t s

At present, the precedent analysis is incomplete. The following pages represent place holders that will be filled over the summer months as an addendum to this document.

p a g e | 9 4

p r e c e d e n t s

p a g e | 9 5


p a g e | 9 6

p r e c e d e n t s

p a g e | 9 7


p a g e | 9 8

p r e c e d e n t s

p a g e | 9 9

p a r t I I M i s s i o n & G o a l s

MISSION

Mission StatementThe project will represent a new model for secondary education by co-locating educational, business, and civic entities within a single facility and by articulating the architectural boundaries between these entities to maximize openness and connectedness for the advantage of all.

Issues

ImageImage or imageability refers to users’ perceptions of the project and its spaces. The primary issues related to image will stem from desires for both a collective image and individual images for the various user groups. Considerations for image may include:

a. Massingb. Sitingc. Materialityd. Penetrations

SeparationAppropriate separation between use groups is critical to the project. For each group to benefit use groups can be neither completely separated from one another nor completely open to one another. Careful consideration and articulation of the boundaries between entities will be necessary. In fact, it is this articulation that is at the heart of the thesis.

CirculationCirculation refers to the connective tissue that binds occupied spaces together and is closely tied to way-finding. Considerations for circulation may include:

a. Connectivityb. Social Interaction/Isolationc. Wayfindingd. Usability as non-programmed space

Spatial RelationshipsSpatial Relationships refers to the geometric arrangement of

p a g e | 1 0 0

spaces and zones within the project. Relationships are often described in terms of distance, i.e. immediately adjacent, near, distant, or unrelated, but can also be described in terms of boundaries and thresholds. The articulation of spatial relationships is critical to the project in order to maximize the benefit of co-locating different user groups in the same facility. Spatial relationship considerations may include:

a. Programme of Space Needsb. Building Organizationc. Securityd. Wayfindinge. Acousticsf. Opportunities for visual connections

Flexibility/AdaptabilityFlexibility/ Adaptability refers to the project’s ability to reinvent or reorganize itself over time to serve the needs of its users. Levels of flexibility/adaptability may manifest themselves as a need to rearrange furnishings, relocate functions, or even accommodate alternative uses. Considerations for flexibility/adaptability include:

a. Structureb. Fixturesc. Furnishingsd. Equipment

Building TechnologyBuilding technology refers to the constructed components of the project. These components include architectural systems such as the exterior envelope, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems. Building technology is an issue with every project, but bringing different use groups together in a single facility raises the issue of separate or integrated systems among other concerns.

Goals

ImageThe goal of the architecture is to express a sophisticated but bold image. The image must be one that inspires, welcomes, and makes the new model for education environments evident to the lay person.

m i s s i o n & g o a l s

p a g e | 1 0 1

p a r t I I m i s s i o n & g o a l s

PerformanceRequirement#1The scale and materiality of the buildingshall be sensitive to, but not referentialof the surrounding architectural context.

PerformanceRequirement#2Exterior and interior surface materials must permit passers-by to experience portions of the activities occurring within.

PerformanceRequirement#3The image of the building must express how it is assembled and be either an expression of work produced within or as a learning tool or both.

SeparationThe goal of the architecture is to provide actual and adjacent experiences in as many circumstances as possible. In lay terms, the activities conducted in each entity must be actually experienced by the ability of a user from another entity actively invited to participate in those activities or experienced through some sensory event without active participation.

PerformanceRequirement#1The architecture of the project must permit users from the other entities (particularly student users) to experience, if not actively participate in, the core activity.

PerformanceRequirement#2Care must be taken to protect the privacy of individuals or entities when necessary. The architecture of the project must provide a choice to increase separation when appropriate.

PerformanceRequirement#3Portions of the project will be accessible to members of the general public. The architecture of the project must provide unrestricted access to portions of the program open to the general public.

CirculationThe goal of circulation is to connect entities with usable, unprogrammed interstitial spaces and to provide visual cues related to wayfinding.

p a g e | 1 0 2

PerformanceRequirement#1The major circulation route for the project must not be uniform in scale, materiality, or dimension. It must be varied to provide ad-hoc places to pause and to gather.

PerformanceRequirement#2The major circulation route must be articulated in such a manner to support the requirements for separation and spatial relationships.

PerformanceRequirement#3Minor circulation routes, those internal to specific entities, must be logical and serve the functional needs.

Spatial RelationshipsThe spatial elements associated with distinct entities may be consolidated into a single area with the exception of the educational elements.

PerformanceRequirement#1Project solutions shall locate spatial elements in such a way to satisfy two basic criteria:

(a) Permit the experience of an entity’s core activity(b) Satisfy the functional requirements of each entity

PerformanceRequirement#2Project solutions shall seek out creative adjacencies in an effort to maximize educational benefit.

PerformanceRequirement#3The designer shall provide a comprehensive adjacency matrix with symbology to represent varying degrees of adjacency including but not limited to: immediately adjacent, near, vertical adjacency, and no adjacency.

PerformanceRequirement#4The designer shall provide a comprehensive conceptual adjacency diagram communicating idealized spatial relationships.

Flexibility/AdaptabilityThe goal of the architecture is to permit programmatic change over time.

m i s s i o n & g o a l s

p a g e | 1 0 3

p a r t I I c o s t e v a l u a t i o n

PerformanceRequirement#1The structural configuration must permit clear span spaces with as few interior columns as possible.

PerformanceRequirement#2Business and civic entities must be located in such a manner to permit a reprogramming of their spaces - including for use as educational spaces.

PerformanceRequirement#3The architecture must establish spatial elements of varying floor areas and volumes in an effort to provide a range of possibilities. This range better permits relocation of programmatic elements without re-partitioning when needs change.

COST EVALUATIONAt this point in the project’s development, it is not yet appropriate to identify a building footprint or a building massing as these items require additional site analysis. What is known at this time is that an expectation exists to occupy only about half the buildable area on the ground floor (approximately 28,000 GSF) and leaving the remaining half to be developed as public open space. Likewise, there is an expectation that the building mass be no more than five stories and approximately 75 feet high at its highest point. How these expectations will be massed is yet to be determined. At present, there are no known vertical set-backs required by the building code and no known horizontal set-backs required from the property line.

Major spatial components and net/gross mark-up ratios are identified in the chart on the following page. It should be noted that a project size of approximately 200,000 GSF may be considered excessive for a thesis, but the program expresses a belief about what is necessary as a critical mass to make the project viable. Should the scale of the project prove to be unmanageable as a thesis, the candidate will work with thesis faculty to choose moments of focus.

p a g e | 1 0 4

c o s t e v a l u a t i o n

480

Space NameUser

CatagoryIBC Use Group Quantity

SizeNSF Each Total NSF

Commons Education E 2 2,500 5,000Student Workstation Education E 240 64 15,360Project Room Education E 6 1,200 7,200Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Education E 12 600 7,200Faculty Shared Professional Space Education E 24 100 2,400Administrative Suite Education E 1 1,000 1,000Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Education E 2 1,800 3,600Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Education E 2 1,800 3,600Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Education E 2 1,800 3,600Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Education E 2 1,800 3,600Studio Education E 12 1,600 19,200Gallery Unassigned 1 (in gross)Outdoor Learning Space Unassigned N/ARetail Suite ‐ 1 Business B 1 800 800Retail Suite ‐ 2 Business B 1 2,000 2,000Architectural Firm Suite Business B 1 8,000 8,000Business Start‐up Suite Business B 3 2,000 6,000Artist Studio Suite Business B 2 2,000 4,000Fitness Suite Business B 1 5,000 5,000Grocery Store Business M 1 5,000 5,000Art, Architecture and Technology Library Civic B 1 2,500 2,500Performance Venue 1 ‐ Seating Civic A 1 6,000 6,000Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Civic B 1 6,000 6,000Performance Venue 2 ‐ Seating Civic A 1 1,800 1,800Performance Venue 2 ‐ Support Civic B 1 2,000 2,0002 BR Residential Unit Residential R 8 1,000 8,0003 BR Residential Unit Residential R 2 1,500 3,000SUBTOTAL 131,860

Net to Gross Multiplier 1.50 197,790

Conceptual GSF Target for Project 200,000

Total Student Enrollment

p a g e | 1 0 5

p a r t I I c o s t e v a l u a t i o n

At present, the cost estimate work sheet is not yet completed. The expectation is to complete this work as an addendum to this document in the upcoming weeks. The following two pages are place holders for this content.

p a g e | 1 0 6

part III

APPENDIX

Visioning Study Excerpts

Randolph High School Interview Notes

Ch 5.2 Notes Workshop Two

Visioning District-Wide Facility Master Plan Randolph Public Schools Randolph, MA 1

Frank Locker Educational Planning February 2012

AGENDA

The second Visioning Team workshop was held on 28th January 2012.

Notes of all activities follow: � Educational Delivery in 2030 � Places for Student-Centered Learning 2 + 3

EDUCATIONAL DELIVERY IN 2030 What will school be Like in 2030? The Table Teams projected 20 years into the future with this challenge:

1. What will students at Randolph Public Schools be

doing later in the 21st Century? What is “a day in

the life of a student?” How might facilities be

impacted?

2. What will faculty/staff at Randolph Public Schools

be doing later in the 21st Century? What is “a day

in the life of a teacher?” How might facilities be

impacted?

3. What will the nature of school be like later in the

21st Century? How might facilities be impacted?

4. How will the community be involved in the school?

Or, how will the school be involved in the

community? How might facilities be impacted?

5. How can buildings be flexible to respond to

changing needs? How might facilities be impacted?

Notes

Workshop Two




Elementary Schools � School starts earlier - age three � Higher expectations for achievement and teacher performance � Flexible learning groups by interest and ability - not grade level � Still some time to run around � What about autistic kids?

o Design to meet individual needs as well as active learning

� Carrying fewer books � Yes, still core subjects: reading, Math, etc,

o With more integration of arts, etc o Art as a core subject

� How will core subjects be learned? o More experimental o Less rote memorization

� Facilitating vs lecturing � Integrating families into learning � Multi-tasking � Challenging students to think more, be more analytical and

creative � Collaborative arrangements↓ � Facilities:

o More open o More adaptive o More flexible

� Year-round learning � Greener schools = tools for learning � More user-friendly and welcoming � Kids want to come � Factory→Google ☺ � Mentoring � Pre-birth programs for parents + birth to pre-school

o Partnering with hospitals � 24/7 / 365 � Fitness Center! � Learning experiences outside of the building � Adventure learning trips � Internships � Service learning

� Community Health Clinics incorporated into the schools o Taunton is doing it now o Dental Clinics

� Learning transcends the building � The building expands into the community � The building serves other needs in the community � “Why can’t parents learn along with their kids?” � Can the schools make money for the community? → economic

development o Use facilities to launch businesses o Entrepreneurial incubators o Students create their own internships o Community growth o Culinary arts

� Catering, functions � Learning by doing � Come for dinner

� Learning center for teachers too

Middle School � “Messy” - not as cleanly structured � Technology everywhere with each student outside school � “Smart desks” � Portfolio/performance-based assessment

o Project-based o Collaborative teams

� But not daily � Not same schedule

� Year-round school � Learning outside of school � Teachers as facilitators

o Work on personal interactions � Focus on critical thinking skills

o How to deal with change � 21

st C skills relevant to future jobs o Business partnerships

� Teachers all digital savvy � “Middle” grades may be blurred

o (Higher expectations) (Gone?)




o More like HS today � Earlier learning

� More diverse student body in Randolph o Needs to be exploited o Culturally knowledgeable

� More attention on individuals, especially at lower levels � Open door Community Center

o Fifteen hours/day o User-friendly o Secure

� Members from community supplement teachers � Parent/volunteer spaces � Video to record school activities

o Use social networking (web blog, etc) to share with parents/other community

� Differentiated teaching/learning styles and spaces � More, different spaces open to one another � Social services support system built into administration

High School 1. What will students be doing?

� Facilitated internships � Service learning � Wide open spaces - learning spaces (5) � Technological collaboration � In-residence collaboration � *Elimination of traditional school day - big opening at mid day

o Consequence: What happens to extracurricular? � Find solutions � Link extracurricular with academics

� *Leverage tech tether o Culture now o Make kids teachers

� Facilities supportive of this - relocate corridor

2. What will faculty/staff be doing? � Higher collaboration expectations for faculty and staff

o Tech as vehicle? � More interdisciplinary connections

� Cyber Café as collaboration space Hypothetical teaching position advertisement: RPS is seeking:

� *Multi-disciplinary facilitators o Team work skills o Collaboration skills o Manage shared groups of common students o Operate within layered (School Within School) structure o Experience with PBL “ability to make” o Tech savvy o Able to organize content around student interest -

overarching themes o Ability to link Randolph methodology with state and

other standards o Experience linking content to practice o Take advantage of town resources; physical and human

resources o Deploy rigor and relevance o Knowledgeable (experts) in content and cognition

(learning) o Ability to differentiate learning

4. How will community be involved?

� Homefront - existing program o Community intervention*

� One to one (three) guidance at student home � Offer services � Early Head Start - expand

� Volunteer professional expertise provided by community � Hosts of interns

o On-site immersion � *Intentional relationship-building

o Not just dump kids in work place � Symbiotic relationships � Competency-based - developmental stages - multi-age at HS

and beyond age eighteen




PLACES FOR STUDENT-CENTERED

LEARNING 2 + 3 The elementary, middle, and high school Table Teams continued their work from the first workshop. Each developed concepts and designed spaces for age-appropriate student centered learning. The results are as follows:

High School Current plan:

Proposed Plan:

Date post:	28-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jason-boone
View:	218 times
Download:	1 times