Rooftop Learning 101: The [Eco]-Logical Learning Tool for Urban Schools

Rooftop Learning 101: The [Eco]-Logical Learning Tool for Urban Schools

This thesis is submitted to the Department of Architecture, at Hampton University in partial fulfillment toward the degree of Master of Architecture.

Submitted by Anthony Price Jr. ARC 601-602: 5th Year Thesis Studios Dr. W. Henderson and Dr. C. Sanchez-del-Valle, Studio Professors Ron Kloster, Thesis Advisor Spring, 2012

2|Rooftop Learning 101

Dedications Just want to dedicate this thesis submission to my family. Mom, Dad, Grandma, Papa, and my three younger brothers! I love you all so much and there is no way I would have made it this far without you all. I did it for each and every last one of you all! I am looking forward to my future endeavors and cannot wait to leave Hampton, VA and get back home to Maryland.

3|Rooftop Learning 101

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this time out to thank all those who have been in my corner since I first started my journey through college. It has been a long, long road, but I have finally made it to my final phase of my college tenure for now (getting my Doctorate and MBA before I leave God’s green earth prayerfully). I especially want to formally thank my Mother, Father, Brothers, Grandma, and Papa. There is no way I would have been able to achieve as much as I have without your help and support. Also, want to thank my Aunts and Uncles and all other family and friends that have helped me along the way.

I am so excited to explore what God has in store for me. God has brought me a long way, so I know he is going to keep guiding me through this journey. I feel very blessed to be in the situation that I’m in, so one more time Lord, THANK YA! As I end here let me leave you with something that is very special to my frat bros (Yo Baby Yo) and I. I try to read this scripture as often as I can, and I encourage you to do the same because everything you need is God’s word.

Proverbs 3: 1-10 (New King James Version) 1. My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: 2. For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.

3. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: 4. So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.

5. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

8. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

9. Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10. So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.

4|Rooftop Learning 101

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………........................6 Section I. The Argument………………..…………………………………………………...........7 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…………..8 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………10 Case Studies……………………………………………………………………..………..13 The Beekman Hill International, P.S. 59…….....................................14 Lycee Francais de New York ..………………………….….................16 Elementary School 9th Arrondissement………………………............19 The Eric Dutt Eco Center, P.S. 6 ..…………………...……………….21 The Gateway School…………………………………..……………….23 Unite d’ Habitation…………………………………..………….………25 Argument Rationale….……….……………………………………...………………….27 Reason I: Definition and Type of Learning………………………...…28 Reason II: The Need for the Rooftop Connection to Nature...……..30 Reason III: Four Critical Areas of the Rooftop……………………….32 Reason IV: Rooftop Program Unstructured and Well Developed.....34 Design Research Proposal………………………………………....…………..……....36 Section II. Design Research……………………...……….……………………………………39 Research Plan Narrative………………………………………...………………………40 Summative Reflective Essay…………………………………...………………………43 Conclusion: Research Findings……………………………….....……………………52 Endnotes…………………………………………………………………………………………..54 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………55 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………..57

5|Rooftop Learning 101

Abstract

In order to keep students motivated to learn and to improve, the way of learning in primary schools must be enhanced. Based on the Reggio Emilia Learning Approach, there is a need to expand learning out of the classroom and using the natural environment as a third teacher. Many primary schools in urban America sit on infill sites and don’t have the site footprint required to expand learning outdoors, which leaves the rooftop as the primary option.

How can these rooftops be designed to best facilitate outdoor learning? Based on case study analysis, these rooftops pose challenges with space available for usage, student access, and incorporating nature into the space. By designing for four critical areas: the roof program, roof surface, roof edge, and the mechanical equipment area, the rooftop can provide for a well developed, yet unstructured connection to the Earth’s ecosystem to increase student learning.

These critical areas are shown through case study analysis as areas that students interact with.

The design research plan involves analysis on these four areas, including designing for an interactive rooftop program, adjusting the topography and materiality of the roof surface, incorporating members of the ecosystem into the roof edge, and reconfiguring the mechanical equipment area to an educational format visibly for students. The design research has incorporated the environment into the curriculum by bringing the ecosystem to the rooftop naturally and through manmade manifestation. At the same time making students aware of how the built environment responds to the ecosystem.

6|Rooftop Learning 101

Section I. The Argument

7|Rooftop Learning 101

Introduction: Rooftops on Urban Schools in Infill lots.

Some students in highly dense urban areas, like those being educated in New York City, are being subjected to disadvantaged learning environments in terms of school buildings in relation to site context. The economy is much to blame with the high cost of land available in the urban environment. According to a study done by The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “Over a ten year span from 1997-2007, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s measure of home prices almost doubled nationally and rose 160% in the New York metropolitan area.”1 With the lack of space in urban cities, the buildings that are being constructed are increasing the density of the city, thus producing structures on infill lots.

Some primary schools in New York City are being designed on lots having buildings adjacent to two sides of the school building. These “in between” school buildings limit the opportunities for an environmental school design. Due to the school buildings being in between other buildings causes a lack of site footprint available for the designer. The lack of site footprint causes the design of these primary schools to be vertical, in which there are multistory mid-rise schools. The verticality of these primary schools causes a higher level of disconnect to the natural environment by forcing circulation upward with little to no site space available for students to access.

With the site restrictions faced by the “in between” primary schools, learning outside of the classroom is extremely limited. There are not many places for students to develop outside of the classroom setting because of the verticality of the school design. The only options are the rooftop and interior courtyards where applicable. The primary place for learning possibilities outside of the classroom is on the roof. The rooftop provides teachers and students a place to expand the lesson plan with a setting that connects to the outside environment. Despite the rooftop being high above the ground, if accessible and secured properly, it can be a great place

8|Rooftop Learning 101

that can facilitate students learning outside of the classroom to provide a more versatile learning environment.

The problem lies wherein these rooftops are not being designed in a way that maximizes student learning. The rooftop on these primary schools are either being underutilized or used to house one main function, such as mechanical systems or recreation like a basketball court. My Research revealed that these rooftops are either used as an elevated blacktop or not used at all by students.

The rooftops in urban cities pose several problems that raised questions that lead the investigation. Being that the rooftop is the primary area for outdoor learning on these “in between� schools, there is a need for the roofs to account for the necessities of a space that allows for the social, cognitive, and academic development of the student. How can the rooftop space be configured to facilitate the social, cognitive, and academic development of the students? One of the problems deals with the rooftop space being limited based on the other functions of the roof. Elements on the roof such as the mechanical systems and lighting operations take up space needed for outdoor learning on the roof. How can the rooftop incorporate these roof features to help further educate students? Another problem is that the rooftops are not connected to the natural environment. Under the Reggio Emilia Learning Approach connecting students to nature as a third teacher is a way to expound upon the learning that takes place in the classroom to give it meaning based on real world experiences with nature and natural cycles. The rooftop is on top of the building and separated from the natural environment, so how can it be connected to the natural environment better to give students a space that uses nature as a third teacher? Also, the rooftop spaces are not scaled proportionally to the students. There is not enough space on the roof to accommodate for the entire student body. Can the rooftop be used as an outdoor learning space that will be proportional to the student body?

9|Rooftop Learning 101

Literature Review The designing of schools in the 21st century have been focused on sustainability and improving the environment, but one thing that is not given enough consideration is how these designs can be utilized to enhance student performance in dire urban conditions. Urban areas, especially those with low income and subpar performance, need all the resources possible to help get students achieving to their maximum capabilities. The “sustainable school design” is great for the environment, but can be even greater for the youth. Furthermore, all schools should be designed with environmental learning spaces to foster environmental awareness and help to maximize student learning capacities. This research is related to sustainable school design and environment learning spaces. The sources that will follow in this paper will touch on the same points and give similar incite to this problem of increasing outdoor learning for children.

This investigation began by looking into sustainability in school design. The book Sustainable School Architecture by Lisa Gelfand (2010), stressed the need and benefits for sustainable schools, as well as bringing together the community through sustainable design and sustainable construction. One of the most prominent ideas of school design that helps address this problem is developing environmental curriculums which is discuss not only in the Sustainable School Architecture, but in Planning and Designing Schools by C. William Brubaker (1998) and in Planning School Grounds for Outdoor Learning by Cheryl Wagner and Douglass Gordon (2010). An environmental curriculum is positive to children learning exposing them to the environment at an early age. With an environmental curriculum, school is where children learn and get hands on experience as to how this world works. Designing schools with environmental learning spaces would allow for children to take advantage of the environmental curriculum and would allow for the environment to take the role as a “third teacher”.2 According to Gelfand (2010) and Ford (2007), an environmental curriculum will promote learning outside of the classroom as well as inside of it.

10 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Other sources focused on outdoor learning spaces. In one article, The Nature of School Gardens, the idea of all elementary schools with gardens was proposed. These nature gardens are like three dimensional textbooks, providing connections to all academic subject areas and have been proven through research to raise test scores.3 This article in conjunction with Planning School Grounds for Outdoor Learning provided statistical information gained from various research studies on how nature gardens and outdoor learning spaces can be beneficial to children at a young age. The article Planning School Grounds for Outdoor Learning gives an overview on different types of outdoor learning areas and considering outdoor learning during the design phase and renovations of past projects.

Children need spaces outside of the classroom to explore self-learning and to build social relationships with people and nature. Also, based on the Reggio Emilia learning approach, the environment should be used as a third teacher. Using the environment as a third teacher allows for children to make sense of the world through contact and experience with this environment. It is good for children to experience natural learning and play in a way that is not overly structured. The environment is a very important teacher because it connects students to all subjects of academia, especially science. “At the Tarver Elementary School in Temple, TX the learning courtyard connects the science lab with the environment.�4 Outdoor learning is another challenge with schools in urban areas with tight site footprints. Some urban schools do not have the privilege of incorporating environmental learning spaces outdoors at their disclosure because the of their site conditions. However, these schools can use the roof or part of their program to house an environmental learning space. Some urban schools use the top of parking lots and lunch rooms for courtyard spaces and play areas according to Cheryl Wagner and Douglass Gordon (2010). These spaces can be used as environmental learning spaces for students who are not as privileged as others.

These spaces can mean so much to a child who lives in an urban environment and is not exposed to the natural environment regularly. These spaces are needed in urban environments 11 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

to motivate urban students and return our inner city education to the prominent stature it once had in the past.

12 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Case Studies Case studies are all based on the conditions of schools existing on infill lots. All of these schools are focused in the area of primary education and early learning. The case studies were analyzed by building program. The initial focus on building program was to see how these “in between” schools were composed and to see what problems could be identified with the composition of the schools in relation to their urban condition. Then the case studies were analyzed by building and roof performance. The analysis was focused on how the rooftop functioned or could function as a learning space and the rooftop’s relation to the classroom and façade. The case studies were analyzed individually starting first with the schools that already used the rooftop as some form of a learning space. After which, the case studies are grouped by the schools that didn’t use the rooftop or had not made it an obvious feature to the school design and curriculum.

13 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Case Study 1: The Beekman Hill International, P.S. 59 ARCHITECT: Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects

CONSULTANTS: Gilsanz Murray Steficek (structural); Goldman Copeland Associates (m/e/p); The Hirani Group (civil); Shen Milsom Wilke (acoustical); Viridian Energy & Environmental (environmental)

CLIENT: The World Wide Group; New York City Department of Education School Construction Authority

SIZE: 50,000 square feet

COST: $30 million

Case Study Overview http://www.archrecord.construction.com

The Beekman Hill International Primary School is very interesting in terms of being

transformed into a working school. The Beekman Hill International was originally a nurse’s residence, but was converted into a school upon the need for space in New York City schools.

Also, the rooftop, which used to house a pergola, is now one that is allowing for students to access and play and self explore.

The decision to change the building program of a nurse’s residence to a school is very strange and upon first thought one may think “this is a horrible idea”, but this school proves that it can be done successfully. The classrooms are formed from the old dormitory rooms that were pre-existing. The classrooms are on the north and south facades maximizing solar gain. The windows in the classrooms could be better though. The architect’s intent was to keep with the historical context of the building, hence keeping the original windows, but based on my analysis the windows could be more inviting for students if they were bigger and allowed more sunlight.

14 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

At the same time, the windows need a little more transparency; they seem to give the feel of an office building rather than classroom.

The architect’s biggest problem with this project was locating the common areas like the library and the gym. The architect decided to put the gym at the top of the building and the cafeteria and library at the bottom. Placing cafeterias in the basement of a school building is very common with schools on infill sites, and the only ones that work well are the ones that bring sunlight in. The Beekman Hill International School does this to both common areas. The gym has clerestory windows that allows for light to come into the gym and the cafeteria gains natural light through the southern façade as well. The perforated metal screen on the rooftop provides a protective enclosure for the rooftop space and forms a sunscreen for the south facing clerestory windows in the gym.

The rooftop program consists of an unstructured play area and a mechanical area.

Despite students having access to the rooftop, the footprint up there is limited because it is split with the mechanical systems on the roof. There could be much more activity held on the roof if the other half of the surface area was not taken up by the mechanical systems. The rooftop area is not very spacious in relation to the student body. There is approximately 3,000 square feet of surface area on the rooftop. Only 1,500 square feet, which is about half of the surface area, is usable because of the mechanical systems that are gated off from the students. 1,500 square feet is approximately half of a tennis court.

The current roof program for the school is completely unstructured with nothing on the roof. The children and teachers are supposed to bring the play or learning exercises to the rooftop. The current layout of the rooftop space seems to be too unstructured and needs vegetation to connect students to the natural environment to truly begin to make it a possible learning space. By putting the mechanical systems in the basement or retrofitting the space, it would allow for a more structured play/learning space on the roof. This would help for students who aren’t privileged to experience nature on a consistent basis.

15 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Case Study 2: Lycee Francais de New York ARCHITECT: Ennead Architects (formerly Polshek Partnership, LLc at time of construction)

CONSULTANTS: Structural Engineer: The Cantor Seinuk Group, P.C., Mechanical Engineer: Thomas Polise Consulting Engineer, P.C., Landscape Consultant: Judith Heintz Landscape Architecture

CLIENT: Lycee Francais de New York

SIZE: 158,000 sq. ft.

COST: 55 million

http://www.archrecord.construction.com

Case Study Overview Lycee Francais de New York is a K-12 school centered in an extremely dense urban area. It is located in one of the busiest cities in the world, New York, New York in a site that is clustered with buildings all around. The Lycee Francais de New York is a compilation of the previous French schools that were scattered around Manhattan in five different buildings into one unified school. It sits on a site that is occupied by five other buildings and directly in between two buildings as if it is a “school row home.�

When designing this school, Ennead Architects not only had to face the urban site conditions, but also the challenges of what the building represented socially. The architect had to solve the question of how he could bring 5 schools across the city into one unified structure to represent the ideals of the French curriculum. Furthermore, the architect had to 16 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

provide the appropriate spaces to unify the students, but also including a way to group the different grade levels of the students. The building form was the key to addressing all of these problems.

The concept of trying to unify the school was achieved through designing all of the common area spaces as the base of the building and two towers for the different grade levels of students, housing the classrooms. The common areas such as the library, cafeteria, auditorium, and gymnasium are shared through the ground floor two floors below. As a result of the site conditions, Ennead Architects felt the best way to use the space was to build not only up, but down into the earth. Above the ground floor are four floors of classrooms housed into two separate towers connected through an outdoor courtyard and walkway space. The North tower is for the nursery and elementary schools and the South tower is for the middle and high school level. Both towers use the rooftop as a learning tool for the students. For the elementary and nursery students, the roof has a learning space incorporated through play and for the middle and high school students the roof has a penthouse that incorporates an art studio and a student lounge that encourages social interactions amongst the students.

The two learning towers or wings that formulate the classroom spaces of the school are connected through a walkway and a courtyard. This feature was designed as a space that could unite students on a social scale and through outdoor learning. This central space unifies the student body and acts as the “heart of the Lycee” (Ennead.com), which defines the school as a French Cultural Center. The courtyard is the most important space of the schools because it adds an element that traditional schools in tight urban footprints usually don’t get to experience. The courtyard is the single design feature that allows for the program to fit twelve hundred students and unifying all grade levels. It is the feature that allows for all the classrooms to gain much needed daylight exposure in this dense urban school.

The unusual building form of this school became the driving inquiry that led the study on how it would affect the learning environment. Unlike many urban schools, this school is 17 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

composed of what looks to be towers of learning containing an open space in between the towers. The interior courtyard system allows for day light to be received in all classrooms, which is essential for maximizing student learning capacities. This system bodes well so that the architect doesn’t have to compromise sunlight in the classroom in return for the much needed outdoor learning space.

The rooftop for the nursery and elementary students is very spacious. There is a little over 10,000 square footage of rooftop total surface area and about 8,600 square feet of usable surface area. The building circulation and mechanical system area is located in the middle of the rooftop in which the rooftop program circulates around. The rooftop program consists of seating that looks out into the city skyline and a play area. There is a lot of unstructured space on the roof, in which students and teachers bring activity to.

A few questions have arisen from the study of the Lycee Francais de New York. How are classrooms located on the same floor as the courtyard affected by the interior courtyard space? It seems that despite the classrooms receiving natural light, the acoustics from space could affect student learning. Also, how can the rooftop transform the unstructured spaces into areas that could enhance learning and student development? The rooftop program needs some reconfiguring and some type of connection to the natural environment.

18 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Case Study 3: Elementary School 9th Arrondissement ARCHITECT: Hamonic + Masson Architects

CONSULTANTS: Landscape Architects: Gilot/ Mandel, Engineering and Quantity Surveyors: Sibat, Contractor: Francilia

CLIENT: Ville De Paris

SIZE: 1,566 square meters

COST: 4,10M Euro

COMPLETION DATE: March 2009 www.archdaily.com

Case Study Overview The Elementary School in the 9th Arrondissement in Paris, France is a complete design that addresses its small site in a way that maximizes the use of environmental learning spaces.

This design uses all of its rooftop spaces and has an outdoor courtyard area as well as vegetal walls to further its concept of connecting students to the natural environment in urban settings.

The elementary school program is fairly different from what is traditional in the United States. It has the principal’s office and guidance counselor’s offices on the upper floors as if they are apartments. Both offices have access to a balcony, which can be used as a learning space for students as well. Also, the school has access to the apartment buildings that are connected to the school. That seems convenient for students who live next door in the

19 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

apartments not having to worry about getting to school on time, but it also allows for people to access the school who possibly could be dangerous to the children.

The theme of the schools is based on a serpentine form that weaves through the site and leaves no space undeveloped. There are a series of courtyards that are accessible by various classrooms and these are spaces for learning and social development. The tail of the building, which is located on the second floor forming into a library, is elevated over the courtyard. It is wrapped in a serigraphed glass cladding that provides a lot of transparency and reflection. This library keeps students motivated to learn and gain knowledge. The cladding on the building is made of transparent glass, the choice of green glass seems as if it would cause for a darker, gloomier classroom, rather than a well lit inspirational classroom.

This elementary school has two rooftops accessible to the students. These rooftop spaces are approximately 3, 750 square feet. Combined they are about the size of a tennis court, which is not a large space, but seems to fit the school population. On all of the rooftops there are green spaces for outdoor learning. These outdoor spaces where designed with good thought showing topography through hills, but seem to be missing some of the major components of outdoor learning spaces. There are no recreational objects, seating, or vegetation beyond grass on these rooftop spaces. The roof needs to be unstructured, but with options for children to explore.

20 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Case Study 4: The Eric Dutt Eco Center, P.S. 6

ARCHITECT: Downtown Group

CONSULTANTS: Landscape Architect: Mark Morrison Landscape Architecture, PC

CLIENT: P.S. 6, The Lillie Devereaux Blake School

SIZE: 9,400 sq. ft. http://www.markkmorrison.com

COST: 1.67 million

COMPLETION DATE: June 2011

Case Study Overview The Eric Dutt Eco Center is one of a kind in New York City. It is the first green roof atop a New York City school and was designed after the death of a teacher who dreamed of having a rooftop eco center. Named after Eric Dutt, a teacher at P.S. 6 who died at age 34, the Eco Center is the first of many that are expected to be built on existing primary schools in New York City. Eric Dutt’s idea for a rooftop classroom had been a pet project for the school’s future curriculum.

The eco center is comprised of an eight hundred square foot greenhouse classroom, solar panels, a weather station, and a planting area. It is used to help reshape the science curriculum in the K-5 facility and in other public schools across the city. Other features of the eco-center include a weather station, turtle pond and planting areas for each grade to grow 21 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

flowers. The Eric Dutt Eco Center consumes the entire rooftop and it educates students on topics of vertical gardening, hydroponics, composting, solar energy, and rainwater capture. The students are able to participate in the school’s garden to café program in which students grow tomatoes, zucchini, squash, blueberries, and other produce that is used in the school’s salad bar. The canopy area on the rooftop is a place for outdoor learning and is thought of as a miniature fieldtrip for students instead of a classroom. The Green house allows for students to learn about the ecosystem and natural cycles of plants.

This project was very expensive, costing a little over one and a half million dollars. The school raised the money to support this project, but it was delayed because of trouble with funding. Another challenge in this eco center project was the actual roof to building relationship. The roof and the building had to be reinforced to accommodate for the weight of the greenhouse and structure and the solar panels.

It seems to be unstructured with a variety of activities available for the students. The rooftop has mechanical systems in an area that is not accessible by the students, but is confined in a room on the roof. The photovoltaic panels on the roof are not accessible by the students, but are visible to them to allow for them to intrigue the students. The rooftop total surface area is 16,082 square feet, but has 13, 497 square feet of usable surface area. The usable surface area is about as large as four and a half tennis courts, a very large roof.

22 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Case Study 5: The Gateway School ARCHITECT: Andrew Bartle Architects

CONSULTANTS: Mechanical: Rey Prego Consulting Engineers; Structural: Robert Silman Associates, P.C.

CLIENT: The Gateway School

SIZE: 10,034 sq. ft.

COST: 2.8 million

COMPLETION DATE: 2000 http://www.abastudio.com/

Case Study Overview The Gateway School is a private school in Manhattan for 55 developmentally challenged elementary school students. It is a very small school that transformed a row house into a school building. The transformation required substantial renovation and expansion to accommodate the program, which called for classrooms for instruction and therapy, recreational areas, an assembly room, and support spaces.

The first priority was adding space to the row home to allow for the program to be completed and feel spacious. The architecture firm accomplished this by extending the back of the building six feet and adding twenty feet to the top of the building. A reception area and offices share space on the first floor, along with classrooms located in the building’s front and rear, where natural daylight is most abundant. Classrooms and support spaces occupy the 23 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

lower and middle floors, while the upper floors house a gymnasium and outdoor rooftop play area. Translucent panels on the gym’s walls were scaled to harmonize with the building’s basket-weave glazed-brick exterior. The play area on the rooftop is enclosed, but brings daylight inside.

The rooftop space is utilized sparingly. It houses a play area that is encased in steel mesh, with glazing on the exterior walls. The play area is very small and is limited due to the mechanical area that blocks access to the rest of the roof. There is 2,250 square feet of total surface area on the rooftop and only 1,653 square feet of usable area, approximately a half of a tennis court. The mechanical systems on the roof, which takes away from some of the amount of usable square footage, but based on the calculations there is still enough space to structure a rooftop program to let students self explore and learn about the natural environment. There is a lot of potential in this design to maximize student learning capacities through a rooftop space.

The mechanical equipment area needs to be reconfigured to allow for more functions on the roof and to help maximize student learning.

24 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Case Study 6: Unite d’ Habitation ARCHITECT: Le Corbusier

CONSULTANTS: Painter-Architect: Nadir Afonso

COMPLETION DATE: 1952

LOCATION: Marseilles, France

Case Study Overview www.archdaily.com The Unite d’ Habitation was designed by Le Corbusier and is a nineteen story reinforced

concrete apartment building. This was Le Corbusier’s first large scale project as it has 337 apartments designed to house up to 1600 people. The living quarters begin on the second floor standing on huge concrete piers, where the first floor is mostly an open sheltered plaza, except for the entrance to the building. The concept of the Unite d’ Habitation was to focus on communal living for all the inhabitants to shop, play, live, and come together in a vertical garden city, proposed by Le Corbusier. The idea of the vertical garden city was based on bringing the villa within a larger volume that allowed for the inhabitants to have their own private spaces, but outside of that private sector they would shop, eat, exercise, and gather together.

The Unite d’ Habitation is a very brutal building, in fact it contributed the use of betonbrut concrete into the brutalist style. From the outside perspective, the building looks really heavy and congested with rooms. In contrast to the façade appearance, one of the most important aspects of the Unite d’ Habitation is the spatial organization of the residential units.

Different from most housing projects that usually have double-stacked corridors, the Unite d’ Habitation is designed so that the units span from each side of the building, as well as having a double height living space to reduce the number of required corridors to one every three floors.

25 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

By narrowing the units and allowing for a double height space, the Unite d’ Habitation is capable of efficiently placing more units in the building and creating an interlocking system of residential volumes.

Due to the large number of people residing in the apartment building, Le Corbusier had to get innovative with the placement of all the functions. Thus, he decided to place them on the rooftop to make up for the footprint used on site that the building covers. The Unite d’ Habitation is not in an infill site, nor is it a school building, but it uses the rooftop in a unique way that attributes to rooftop design, making this project a very valuable case study. The rooftop on the Unite d’ Habitation becomes a garden terrace that features a running track, sculptural ventilation stacks, solarium, a club, a kindergarten, a gym, and a shallow pool. All of these functions work together in harmony, allowing for the user to be able to explore and interact with other residents on the rooftop.

Currently the rooftop is not accessible at this moment, but when it was available it was used a lot. The rooftop is humungous with 33,900 square feet of total surface area on the rooftop and 33,000 square feet of usable area, approximately ten and a half tennis courts. The mechanical systems on the roof are apparent, but are in the form of sculptures, which allows for the mechanical systems to blend in with the rest of the space. The rooftop is designed to facilitate student learning with the elementary school located on the roof. The functions on the rooftop that go along with the elementary school allows for students to learn and explore outside the classroom. The rooftop design is lacking vegetation and evidence of nature which contributes to keeping the students disconnected from the natural environment.

26 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Argument Rationale Primary Schools located in the urban context that sits on an infill lot have limitations regarding space for learning outside of the classroom. The rooftop is the primary space in these schools that can facilitate outdoor learning. The problem occurs as a result of how rooftop spaces are designed; typically they are not designed as a learning space.

The question that led this investigation is in relation to increasing outdoor learning in urban schools. Is it possible to achieve a prototypical rooftop design that has a connection to the Earth’s ecosystem and can facilitate outdoor learning in all facets of education? By designing for four critical areas: the materiality of the roof surface, the circulation of the roof functions and spaces, the way the roof edge addresses the students, and reconfiguring the materiality and location of the mechanical equipment area, the rooftop can provide for a well developed, yet unstructured connection to the Earth’s ecosystem to increase student learning.

The rooftop can facilitate learning based on the definition of learning and the types of learning.

The rooftop having a connection with nature can be used to maximize student learning. The four critical areas of a rooftop need to be manipulated in a way to maximize student learning.

Finally, the rooftop has a need to be fully developed, but unstructured by definition to maximize student learning. The limits of this claim are drawn from the fact that we cannot truly test out if it is possible to increase student grades and test scores.

27 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Reason I: Definition and Type of Learning The definition of learning is a very broad term in regards to what learning is. Learning takes place in various forms and through all facets of personal experiences. Based on Dictionary.com, “Learning is the modification of behavior through practice, training, or experience”. One can learn in a variety of ways, not just through taking sitting in front of a teacher and being taught on a subject. Learning happens through experiences and human contact.

According to the article Understanding Your Learning Styles, “Learning styles refer to the variations in your ability to accumulate as well as assimilate information.”5 There are three main styles of learning, which are auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning. Auditory learning is learning through hearing. This is the traditional form of learning through listening to someone or something. Visual learning is learning through seeing. In combination with auditory learning, this is a traditional form of learning in a classroom. Kinesthetic learning is through tactile methods, such as moving, doing, acting, and touching. Kinesthetic learning is learning though all senses. All three of these learning styles can be achieved on the rooftop. Even more so, the rooftop allows for an increase in kinesthetic learning because it offers more opportunities for a child to learn through their senses.

Child development takes place in a variety of areas within learning. Schools need to be designed to facilitate child development and all areas. According to article Children and Their Development as their starting point, “Knowledge about development in the physical, ego, cognitive, social, and ethical realms each has implications for the design of elementary schools.”6 A child develops physically, which is through changes in the student’s body. This happens as a result from experience through movement, adventure, and exploration. A child develops cognitively, which is the way children construct knowledge. Rigolon and Alloway (2011) suggest, “Children need opportunities to explore, reflect upon, and talk about new 28 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

ideas.�7 Social development is learning to interact with others and to be able to contribute to a group. Designing of a rooftop can encourage socialization and help build student’s social skills.

29 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Reason II: The Need for the Rooftop Connection with Nature Bringing nature into school design is critical in the learning environment. Bringing the natural environment into student learning at a young age is even more critical. With the condition of the urban environment combined with a school on an infill lot, the rooftop has to be the place that incorporates nature into the school design. Nature has an effect on a child’s learning ability that is irreplaceable. Students having a direct relationship with nature have signs of improved learning in mathematics and science related subjects. Designing with nature, Students gain a sense of pride with gaining knowledge and developing a passion for learning.

“The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF) studied the effects of environmentally based education programs on student learning in 60 schools. It found that students participating in these programs performed better on standardized measures of academic achievement in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies, and there was a reduction in disciplinary actions. In addition, there was an increased engagement and enthusiasm for learning, and greater pride and ownership in accomplishment.”8 Also, nature can be incorporated into the curriculum to maximize student learning.

“Schools can facilitate hands on learning with the natural environment that can study ecosystems, alternative power generations, and organic gardening.”9 The rooftop can be a place that house ecosystems and natural cycles and can be incorporated into the learning curriculum.

The Reggio Emilia Learning Approach is being applied to the concept of rooftop learning. The Reggio Emilia Learning Approach discusses the parents as a student’s first teacher, teacher as a facilitator of learning, and the environment as the third teacher.

“This learning approach fosters children’s intellectual development through a systematic focus on symbolic representation. Young children are encouraged to explore their environment and express themselves though all of their natural 30 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

languages, or modes of expression, including words, movement, drawing, painting, building, sculpture, shadow play, collage, dramatic play, and music.�10 Schoolyard designs are linked to learning programs that are considered to be the “third teacher.�11 The schoolyards available for urban schools are on the rooftop. These rooftop spaces can be used as a learning tool when connected to nature. Based on this approach, there is a need for the natural environment to be incorporated in the roof design.

31 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Reason III: Four Critical Areas of the Rooftop After analysis and investigating roofs of urban schools, there are four critical areas of the roof that need manipulating. The roof surface, space division, edge conditions, and mechanical equipment areas are all areas of the roof that need to be addressed in terms of learning on the rooftop. With the incorporation of architectural elements and practices, these areas can be used to transform the rooftop into a developed outdoor learning space. The case studies show the importance of having these areas on the rooftop addressed through design to facilitate a space that can maximize student learning.

The roof surface is the main space that needs revitalization amongst all of the roof areas. The roof surface is the first thing that is encountered by the students. When a student walks on the roof it gives the students the initial feel for what the rooftop is structured for. For example, in Case Study 1: The Beekman Hill International School has a rooftop that is has no texture or materiality. The rooftop is a concrete slab, which is the equivalent of a blacktop in most schools with site footprint. The blacktop is used primarily for playing and it limits the student’s experiences with nature and outdoor learning.

Space division is an area that the rooftop should address when concerning all of the functions that are on the roof. Sometimes on the roof there are different things that are taking place and need to be divided accordingly. Different functions that are housed on the roof include play areas, vegetal areas, equipment areas, and seating. The rooftop on the Case Study 2: Lycee Francais de New York has several functions on the rooftop, but are not divided at all which causes a lot of space on the roof to be unused. When these functions aren’t divided in a way that can transition the space into being educational it hinders the purpose of an outdoor learning space.

32 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

The edge conditions of the roof can play an important role in the rooftop being used as an outdoor learning space. This part of the roof is extremely neglected. In fact, none of my case studies used this part of the rooftop to inspire any type of outdoor learning. The rooftop boundaries can be used to facilitate learning though the use of different architectural elements.

Instead of putting up a gate or fence that simply says “stay away,� the use of different architectural elements could be used to teach students.

The reconfiguration of the mechanical equipment spaces can be used to enhance the learning taking place on the roof. This only applies to rooftops that house the mechanical equipment on the roof. Not all projects house the mechanical equipment on the rooftop in order to maximize space on the roof for students to explore. Case Study 3: The Elementary School 9th Arrondissement is a good project that housed the mechanical equipment underground to allow for students to enjoy the rooftop space freely. If the mechanical equipment has to be on the rooftop, it should be used or configured in a way to help further the connection to nature and learning on the rooftop.

33 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Reason IV: Rooftop Program Unstructured and Well Developed When designing a rooftop that is accessible to students the functions need to be unstructured in terms of giving students options of involving themselves in different things. The rooftop wouldn’t be promoting maximizing student learning if it is a specific use space. Outdoor learning spaces should be flexible and should be adaptable to many activities.12 The rooftop should be developed with multiple functions and at the same time allowing for students to explore on their own. The students should have options on the rooftop to experience different types of learning.

The outdoor learning space on the rooftop should be consistently changing to always allow for the students to learn. The rooftop should be unstructured, but allow for natural cycles to occur to constantly educate the student.

“Outdoor play spaces should not be separate from the educational experience because they can play a unique role in the process of developing knowledge.

While many outdoor play spaces are characterized by asphalt, they can potentially provide contact with living things like plants and animals, which can powerfully express seasonal cycles. Organic matter is in a state of flux, changing with time, and thus contact with living things can promote both memory and language acquisition.”

13

In all of the case studies with concrete rooftops, there is a lack of nature present which causes the rooftop to be unstructured, but not developed. Case Study 3: The Elementary School 9th Arrondissement is structured because it has a strong connection to nature, but is not developed to house multiple functions and offer diverse exploration.

For the rooftop to be unstructured and developed it has to use diverse materials and allow for different methods to interact with each other. According to whitehutchinson.com, “Natural elements provide for open-ended play that emphasizes unstructured creative exploration with diverse materials. The high levels of complexity and variety nature offers invite 34 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

longer and more complex play�.14 Using nature in different ways on the rooftop will allow for students to continuously learn and not be forced to a specific function.

35 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Design Research Proposal

Phase I: Roof Program The first part of this phase will be spent exploring what functions need to be incorporated on the rooftop for students to learn and for the school to function at the highest capacity. In this part, traditional functions housed in schools and outside of schools will be evaluated as to whether it belongs on the roof. The second part of this phase will be developing a rooftop program that will cover all aspects of outdoor learning for students. This will be done by combining all of the functions evaluated in the first part of the phase.

Phase II: Roof Surface The first part of this phase will be spent exploring and analyzing various roof surface materials as to which types will be beneficial to the student learning on the rooftop. Also, the first part will look at the possible changes of topography on the surface and reasoning for the change to increase student learning. The second part of the phase will be developing a rooftop surface that best helps students learn. This will be done by combining the materiality and topography changes from the first part of the phase into one complete layout of the roof surface.

Phase III: Roof Edge The first part of this phase will be used to identify the key things the roof edge can do in order to make this element of the roof a learning feature. What architectural elements can be used to make the roof edge not just a protective feature for security, but can be used to engage the student in learning? The second part of this phase will involve the development of a complete roof edge design feature that protects the students, but best provides opportunities for

36 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

student learning. This will be achieved by combining all of the elements that were discovered in the first part of the phase.

Phase IV: Mechanical Equipment Space The first part of this phase will be spent analyzing what mechanical equipment is most commonly found on school rooftops and the most common locations on the roof for the equipment. The second part of this phase will take those findings and exploring how to configure the mechanical equipment in a way that is safe, but educational to students. How can students interact with the mechanical equipment area? The final part of this phase will involve locating and developing the mechanical equipment space. This will be done by combining the first two part of this phase.

Phase V: Prototype Rooftop This phase will involve the combination of all the analysis and development from the previous four phases. A prototypical rooftop will be developed with all four critical areas on the roof addressed. This prototype will be for all primary schools in New York City with the infill condition.

37 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Part of Claim to be Identified: Four Critical Areas of the Rooftop

Context

Approach

Mode

Criteria

Roof Program Phase II Wk 1-3

Roof Surface Phase I Wk 3-5

Roof Edge Phase III Wk 5-7

Roof Functions found on any type of roof

Primary School Roof Surface

Roof edge that provides safety

Set a rooftop program

Reconfigure Roof surface materiality and topography

Change Rooftop edge materiality Reconfigure rooftop boundaries

Plans, Axon, Chart

Sections, Plans, Axons

Perspectives, Axons

Spatial Qualities: Parts of roof that work together

Combined Materiality with topography on roof to best help students learn

Architectural elements that can be used to help edge increase student learning

38 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Mechanical Equipment Area Phase IV Wk 7-9

Mechanical Equipment found on schools Reconfigure Mechanical Equipment Space into a learning tool

Perspectives, Sections, Axons Areas of the mechanical space that can be used to help students learn

Roof Prototype Phase V Wk 10

NYC school with infill condition

Put all four critical areas together

Physical Model, Axon Evaluate all four critical areas combined

Section II. Design Research

39 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Research Plan (Narrative) Phase 1: Roof program (4 weeks) The roof program is investigated with the intent of trying to find the appropriate program that best addresses the claim. The rooftop program is formulated on the basis of the Reggio Emilia learning approach in combination with the needs found from case study analysis. Once the program is suggested, they can be applied to the different rooftop types and lot types with two main questions to be investigated. The first question is it possible for the rooftop program to be translated between the two lot types, equilateral and narrow? The second question is which ordering system, hierarchy or zoning will allow for the programmatic spaces to interact best with each other and with the children and teachers?

The guiding questions are initially investigated through a series of plan diagrams and then translated into a three dimensional format using Sketch Up. They are to be evaluated based on how well they meet a series of questions based on the safety, interaction amongst spaces, interaction amongst the inhabitants on the rooftop, accessibility of the egress, roof edge visibility, and the mechanical equipment area that’s visible. Once all of the plan diagrams are evaluated, the most effective plan types are selected to be further investigated in the later phases.

Phase 2: Roof Surface (2 weeks) The roof surface is investigated to explore the technical aspects of how the rooftop can be constructed. Taking the three plan types that were developed in the first phase, the roof surface is explored through section drawings. Since there investigation is focused mainly on pre-existing primary school buildings, everything brought to the roof must be added onto the existing roof surface. Hence the evaluation of the roof surface is based on the addition in height to the existing roof surface with consideration towards minimizing the roof load as much as 40 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

possible. The guiding question that determines the addition height is what component of the program requires the most depth? After that is determined it is applied to the rooftop and then further investigation through section takes place to understand the components of what makes up the roof surface.

Phase 3: Roof Edge (2 weeks) Dealing with the roof edge there is limited opportunity to teach students about the ecosystem. Especially with the notion of trying achieve something different from what the roof’s program has to offer. The roof’s edge also needs to keep children protected while at the same time it needs to allow for students to still be connected to the environment outside of the rooftop.

Incorporating the wildlife that makes up the local ecosystems is proposed. This takes place in stations on the wall that allow for students to learn about the inhabitants of the ecosystem as well as keeps them connected to the world outside of the school. Through perspectives and three dimensional modeling the species habitat wall is proposed and investigated. Wall sections are used to explore how the stations in the wall operate and go together. The roof edge is investigated independently of what goes on with the program and assumes the surface is the same as what is explored in second phase.

Phase 4: Mechanical Equipment (2 weeks) All of the mechanical equipment and/or systems on the rooftop are investigated for possible interactions with children and ways it can be used to teach students how the building responds to the natural environment. The code restrictions are reviewed out of the international building code to explore what limitations are imposed on children and teachers in regards to interacting with the mechanical equipment. The existing mechanical rooms on the roof are investigated through three dimensional modeling and perspectives for possibilities of reconfiguring the room as a learning tool for students.

41 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

The rooftop has a living machine system that has its own mechanical equipment housed in the environmental laboratory greenhouse. This mechanical system recycles the grey water in the building, making it reusable on the roof and in the building through a natural purification process. Children are exposed to the living machine system through interaction with the mechanical equipment housed in the greenhouse and the two wetlands that has microorganisms that filter the grey water. This process is explored through detailed sections and diagrams showing how the system works and how students interact with the components of the living machine system.

42 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Summative Reflective Essay New York City is a place where the youth of the future are being deprived of a fair education partly based on the circumstances of their location. A highly dense urban environment has limitations of site space and school facility design that can hinder a child’s educational experience, not to mention the overpopulation of children crammed into some of these school facilities. Urban schools that are in infill conditions have minimal space on the ground. Infill lots, in this case refer to school buildings located between other structures leaving no setback. Students that attend these schools are missing a vital connection to the natural environment that isn’t being manifested in student education.

A vital connection to the natural environment is expressed in the principles of the Reggio Emilia learning approach. Unlike the Montessori approach, The Reggio Emilia learning approach emphasizes nature, or the natural environment, as a third teacher. The parent and physical instructor/teacher are being the first and second. The Reggio Emilia learning approach places an extreme emphasis on the environment that surrounds the children’s learning and making the child feel comfortable in the environment. The environment in which students learn is to model what exist in the actual society. For example, if the courtyard connects the classrooms as to a plaza connecting businesses together. Students are to explore the natural environment to further their understanding of the physical and structural makeup of the world we live in. This learning approach also gives students a sense of stewardship for the environment at a young age, which instills life principles of taking care of the environment and allowing our actions to play a role in saving the planet.

Based on of the Reggio Emilia learning approach, there is a need for outdoor learning.

The classroom can facilitate the means of the environment, but for there to be a strong connection with the natural environment, students must experience learning outdoors amongst natural elements. The problem with urban schools that sit on infill sites is that there aren’t many 43 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

places for outdoor learning. The rooftop and courtyard spaces (if applicable) are the only places to facilitate outdoor learning and based on the site constrictions the rooftop is the primary option. The rooftop needs to be designed in a way that will maximize student learning through an environmental connection. Case study analysis has showed that there are challenges for outdoor learning being posed on these rooftops for space available for usage, student access, and incorporating the natural environment in the rooftop spaces.

Is it possible to achieve a prototypical rooftop design that has a connection to nature, most importantly, the Earth’s ecosystem and can facilitate outdoor learning in all facets of education? By designing for four critical areas: the materiality and topography of the roof surface, the circulation of the roof program and spaces, the way the roof edge addresses the students, and reconfiguring the materiality and structure of the mechanical equipment area, the rooftop can provide for a well developed, yet unstructured connection to the Earth’s ecosystem to increase student learning. The rooftop can facilitate learning based on the different styles of learning and the types of learning. The rooftop, having a connection with the ecosystem along with manipulating the four critical areas, can be used to maximize student learning.

Since the claim is dealing with four critical areas on the rooftop, these four areas that lead the investigation. The design research plan is to look at all of these critical areas in relation to forming an ecosystem for a prototypical school rooftop that could be used on other rooftops around the country. The design research plan is based on the following: The first phase looks at developing a rooftop program and allowing for the spaces of the program to work together in harmony to allow for the roof functions to interact.

What spaces are needed on the rooftop for

students to learn about nature and how can these spaces interact? The second and third phase consists of manipulating the rooftop surface and roof edge to help facilitate outdoor learning and how these areas can affect and enhance the rooftop program. How are the spaces on the roof designed and arranged based on the change of materiality and topography of the roof surface and the possible interactions with the roof edge? The fourth phase deals with 44 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

reconfiguring the mechanical equipment area into a learning vessel for students and not just a penthouse to house the mechanical equipment. Is there a way to involve students with the mechanical equipment area and/or make it accessible to students and faculty without jeopardizing their health and safety?

The context for the investigation is a hypothetical site in New York City, an infill lot with the best solar orientation possible. The type of school chosen was based from case study analysis, an average size primary school of ten thousand square feet, and housing kindergarten through sixth grade. The primary school typology was chosen because of the need of to educate children as early as possible to give them a sense of stewardship for the environment that they can have for the rest of their lives. Two lot types are to be investigated: a narrow infill lot and a more equilateral infill lot.

Some of the criteria that are established revolve around incorporating nature into all facets of the rooftop design. Also, the safety and security of the children and teachers on the rooftop is just as important as the conceptual idea of the rooftop. The Reggio Emilia Learning Approach in combination with the construction of an ecosystem on the rooftop provides the following criteria: children being able to explore some parts of the rooftop by themselves, being able to learn through direct physical engagement with the rooftop, being able to experience the rooftop with other students to allow for exploration and learning, and having a multitude of ways to express themselves on the rooftop physically, socially, and emotionally.

The main focus of the rooftop space is for students to understand how natural cycles work, how incorporating the ecosystem into our daily activities can better our environment, and how the ecosystem can be substituted in the place of ordinary objects and functions. The initial steps of the design investigation began with a lot of brainstorming and figuring out systems that would allow for a connection between the spaces on the rooftop. There are four different types of spaces needed on the rooftop which include: outdoor exploration spaces, seating spaces for lecturing and social interaction, classroom areas, and play areas. These spaces are based on 45 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

the essential needs of an outdoor learning space investigated in the first semester that is on a rooftop.

During the first phase, after analyzing the needs of the rooftop, the program was developed for four areas: seating, outdoor exploration, classroom, and play areas. For the seating area, pavilion and amphitheatre seating is required for social and cognitive learning.

Outdoor exploration areas consist of a forest area, sundial area, rooftop farm area, and wetland areas for social and physical learning. The classroom area consist of an environmental laboratory greenhouse which houses the living machine equipment as well as a forum for physical and cognitive learning in which children and teachers can engage in learning about nature. The play area consists of climbing zones, tunnels, playground equipment, and sand pits for social learning.

Upon working in plan and diagrams, two dimensional formats, these mediums were used to figure out a logical way to organize the rooftop space. This began to pose restrictions as it only allowed the rooftop to be investigated as a programmatic exercise and limited the analysis for how these spaces can interact. Hence, working in sketch up and doing perspectives gives a better reality to the investigation and has allowed for a deeper understanding of what spaces work well together and which ones do not. The three dimensional aspect of programming the rooftop will allow for new discoveries for what can be done with the rooftop surface and roofs edge. This has reformed the design research plan to incorporate not just the program, but the surface and edge of the rooftop at the same time. This form of design will lead to a more abstract, but at the same time realistic form on the rooftop that helps further the claim as an ecological learning tool for students.

The research in phase one has proven that just organizing the functions on the rooftop is not enough and that by bringing together the functions around some of the Reggio Emilia learning principles it can produce for a more unstructured learning space for students. Also, the research in this phase has provided insight on the difficulties related to designing a prototypical 46 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

rooftop. A prototypical rooftop is one that can be transferable to other locations as long as the infill conditions are present. By working with two different lot types, which are the most common amongst school buildings in infill lots, the design research has shown that it is capable of transferring the same concept of rooftop design from one rooftop orientation to another. This can be achieved using a grid system or hierarchy system amongst the spaces on the rooftop, which is compatible with the rooftop forms. However, the variations from climate to climate and different types of areas restrict the rooftop program from being completely transferable to every school that sits on an infill site. To maximize the student’s knowledge and making them aware of the ecosystems present around them, the rooftop program components will change based on the actual ecosystems of where the school is located at. Thus this investigation is limited to primary schools in New York City and possibly those who have the same temperate climate as New York does.

In the second phase, site sections were used to investigate the way the rooftop would be composed. Investigating the roof surface has played an important role in seeing how the programmatic functions work in relation to how they are built up on the roof. The criteria involve providing an addition on to the existing rooftop surface and not actually changing the preexisting roof structure. Based on this investigation being focused on existing rooftops mainly, the rooftop structure cannot be tampered with so an addition must be applied. The addition is based on the program element that requires the most depth on the rooftop; the tree roots.

Based on the trees selected for the program and the knowledge of how deep of soil needed for the root lengths by the New York City Parks and Recreation report, it was determined that a 4 foot addition to the roof will be sufficient enough to establish as the new rooftop surface height.

Looking in section allowed for exploration as to what elements would be used to comprise the new surface. For areas with sand and grass there is a six inch drainage medium and drainage system required to ensure water from the rain is collected and reused, and that it doesn’t damage the roof structure. For surfaces with tiling and built up areas to meet the 4 foot 47 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

addition, such as the greenhouse, there is an elevated concrete slab with waterproofing that allows for pipes to run under for electrical purposes, as well as transferring the grey water through the living machine system. The detailed sections show how the addition of a concrete slab with waterproofing and drainage, along with the vegetation and gravel used to purify the grey water works through a highly complex ecosystem that is fun for kids and will bring living organisms to the site. Site sections developed in this phase expounded on part of the claim by manipulating the site surface and reconfiguring it to allow for students to learn about the ecosystem and how the surface itself can be a vessel for the building to contribute to bringing ecosystems to the rooftop.

In the third phase the roof’s edge was investigated to see how it could be used to manifest the ecosystem, as well as how it would tie into the surface and be structurally sound.

The edge that was focused on was the ones that are located on the front and rear of the rooftop, perpendicular to the buildings that enclose the space. The case studies suggest that there is room for investigation with the rooftop edge as some projects use transparent fencing systems to enclose the space for safety purposes. This investigation seeks to explore an enclosing system to maximize learning through the use of the local environment, while at the same time keeping students safe and connected to the outside environment.

The edge of the roof provides opportunities for interaction with the species that exist in New York. For example, the edge of the rooftop would naturally attract birds and other organisms that can get to the roof. This opened the idea of developing the roof edge as a place where students can learn about the species and inhabitants of New York City that are not always thought of or interacted with on a regular basis. These species that inhabit New York City help make up the ecosystem as well. Thus, the idea of a “species habitat wall” was developed and investigated.

The species habitat wall would bring the species in New York City into the lives of children at the school who might or might not be aware that they exist where they live. This 48 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

phase of the investigation transitioned into finding ways to further help educate students on the inhabitants that make up New York’s ecosystem. Proposed stations are as follows: aquarium station, species grouping station, bird station, insect station, and a lookout station.

The aquarium station houses the aquatic life that exist in Hudson River in New York City and allows for students to visually see the how those species interact. The aquarium also allows students to engage with the aquatic life by having a feeder to feed the species. The species grouping station incorporates the mammals, amphibians, and reptiles as a magnetic puzzle. The students have to match the species with their holder within their species type within the time limit. This is a fun engaging activity for students that allow for them to know about the different animals that exist in New York City that aren’t prevalent to their lives.

The bird station is a favored over the rest of the stations because it engages natural interaction with the students and the birds. This station features a bird feeder on the exterior of the wall along with a student drop off box for students to place items for birds to collect found on the rooftop. This station allows students to see the different types of birds that inhabit New York’s ecosystem on a regular basis.

The insect station features an ant, bee, and butterfly simulation that shows students how these specific species benefit the ecosystem. Students can also look through a microscope found at the station to look at the species and items found on the rooftop within a better focus.

The insect station also has magnifying glasses for the younger students so that they can go around the site and explore the organisms that make up the ecosystem on their own. Finally, the lookout station is proposed to keep the connection of the student to what’s going on in the world around the school. This allows students to visually stay connected to the environment outside of the rooftop. At the same time the lookout station houses a living wall system to continue educating students about the different vegetal organisms that inhabit New York City.

The final phase of the investigation involves investigating the mechanical equipment area on the rooftop. Initially the idea of the mechanical area was envisioned as a place where 49 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

students would be able to interact with physically. After investigating the different mechanical equipment and looking into the international building code it was realized that having students around those types of equipment can be dangerous and hazardous. The mechanical equipment area can offer a visual connection with the use of state-of-the-art technology to show energy usage, the difference in temperature, and the different pipe systems used to facilitate hot and cold water and air throughout the building. This will enable students to have a better appreciation and understanding for how they use energy and how their school building helps and/or hurts the natural environment. This part of the phase does not contribute directly to the claim, but helping students to learn about the workings of the mechanical equipment helps the school and the environment.

The second part of the phase explored the idea of the living machine. The living machine theory, which uses wastewater consumption in the building to generate clean water for usages on the rooftop, such as the greenhouse and student garden area, allows for an entire area on the rooftop to become a “living ecosystem�. The living machine is further expounded upon with the detailed sections of both wetland areas on the roof that are used to purify the grey water in order to return it for usage in the building and on the rooftop. The living machine theory has a diagram (figure 1) showing how the grey water in the building goes through a purification system with the wetlands that is engaging with children, but at the same time helping occupants of the school to reuse the water and for those on the rooftop to use it as well. The living machine system allows for student to experience an ecosystem on their own and with the guidance of their teacher as well.

50 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Figure 1 At the conclusion of the design research it was realized that the claim initially investigated was furthered. The research conducted went beyond investigating the rooftop as a place that teaches children about the ecosystems in their local area. The research of the mechanical systems allowed for students to learn about how the built environment responds to the natural environment. Children are exposed to systems that allow them to understand how their school building can help the environment while at the same time bringing the local ecosystems on the rooftop. This is deemed necessary because learning about how humans respond to the environment can also make children aware of the need to take care of the world and it will give children a greater love for nature.

51 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Conclusion: Research Findings The investigation has benefited towards finding possible solutions towards an improving curriculum for children attending primary schools by bringing the ecosystem into an outdoor learning experience on the rooftop. The research has shown that by bringing the local ecosystems to the four critical areas on the roof can provide possibilities of increasing learning for students deprived of learning outside of the classroom. This investigation has contributed to the New York City and, on a larger scale, the United State’s green roof phenomenon that is growing in urban areas. On a broader scale, this investigation shows that rooftop learning can be incorporated in school design and used to improve education not just in urban areas alone, but in all parts across the nation.

The research has attributed improvement on three scales: the environment, school building, and people. Rooftop learning is contributing towards an alternative solution for making our environment as healthy as possible, along with our school buildings becoming more efficient and beneficial to the environment, and at the same time increasing student learning through bringing the ecosystem into the student’s curriculum. This improvement is needed in today’s profession, in which architects are doing everything they can to improve the natural environment while at the same time the educational environment.

However there are some gaps and limitations in the investigation that need to be further explored in the future. The investigation doesn’t explore how all four of the critical areas on the rooftop can work together in harmony as a learning vessel. Instead, the investigation focuses mainly on how each of the areas can be used to incorporate the ecosystems to help educate students assuming that all of the areas on the roof will work together. Furthermore, there is no complete rooftop design generated in the end. It was originally proposed to investigate all of the four areas individually and then as a whole, but due to time constraints that was never achieved.

52 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

The roof edge and mechanical equipment area has room for further investigation. The proposed species habitat wall on the roof edge focuses in on one specific area of the ecosystem dealing with the species. There is some opportunity that wasn’t explored for the roof edge to incorporate more wildlife species of the ecosystem. It was important to incorporate wildlife species because of the need to educate students about the species that are uncommon and common to children. Common species like rats and rodents found in New York City were not incorporated because the intent was to engage students with the wall and not disinterest them.

The exploration of the mechanical equipment room was limited based on the international building code, thus taking away the possibility of children physically engaging with the mechanical equipment. There is room for future exploration of how technology can be incorporated with the design of the mechanical equipment area to help interact and learn about the systems in the building.

Looking at all of the mechanical systems on the rooftop, including the living machine system, it furthered the initial claim. The furthered claim would be that by designing for four critical areas: the developing of an interactive roof program, the materiality and topography of the roof surface, the way the roof edge addresses the students, and reconfiguring the materiality of the mechanical equipment area, the rooftop can provide for an unstructured connection to the Earth’s ecosystem teaching students about the environment they live in as well as how the built environment responds to the natural environment. All of which can be used to improve student learning and to instill principles of stewardship and a love for nature in students at an early age.

This investigation allows for rooftops to be used as an ecological learning vessel that naturally and, in some ways, artificially will bring the components of the local ecosystems to the rooftop.

53 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

Endnotes

54 | R o o f t o p L e a r n i n g 1 0 1

1

Haughwout, Andrew, James Orr, and David Bedoll. "The Price of Land in New York Metropolitan Area." Current Issues in Economics and Finance 14 (2008). http://newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci14-3.pdf (accessed October 24, 2011).

Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric Corey Freed. Sustainable school architecture: design for primary and secondary schools. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010, page 163.

2

3

Exchange Press. "The Nature of School Gardesn." NACC Newsletter, Sep. - Oct. 2010.

4

University, American Schools &. "Outstanding Designs: Elementary School." School Design 1 (2008): page 65 5

Ldpride.net. "Understanding Your Learning Styles." Learning Styles, Summer 2008, page 1.

6

Rigolon, Alessandro, and Maxine Alloway. "Children and their development as the starting point."Education & Child Psychology 28, no. 1 (2011): page 65.

7

Ibid, page 67

Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric Corey Freed. Sustainable school architecture: design for primary and secondary schools. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010, page 164.

8

9

Green school primer: lessons in sustainability.. Mulgrave, Vic.: Images Pub., 2009, page 8.

10

Edwards, Carolyn P., Lella Gandini, and George E. Forman. The hundred languages of children: the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Norwood: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1993, page 3.

Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric Corey Freed. Sustainable school architecture: design for primary and secondary schools. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010, page 164.

11

12

Wagner, Cheryl, and Douglas Gordon.Planning School Grounds for Outdoor Learning. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2010, page 2.

13

Dudek, Mark, Dorothea Baumann, and Margot Stringer. Schools and kindergartens a design manual. Basel: BirkhaĚˆuser, 2007, page 42.

14

Stoecklin, Randy White & Vicki. "Children's Outdoor Play & Learning Environments: Returning to Nature." White Hutchinson. http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/outdoor.shtml (accessed November 2, 2011).

Bibliography Bowers, Rebecca S. "A Pedagogy of Success: Meeting the Challenges of Urban Middle Schools." Clearing House 73, no. 4 (March 2000): 235. Academic Search Complete,

EBSCOhost (accessed September 24, 2011).

Brubaker, C. William. Planning and designing schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998.

Dudek, Mark, Dorothea Baumann, and Margot Stringer. Schools and kindergartens a design manual.

Basel: BirkhaĚˆuser, 2007.

Duncan-Andrade, Jeffrey M., and Ernest Morrell. "Chapter 1: The Challenges and Opportunities of Urban Education." In Art of Critical Pedagogy: Possibilities for Moving from Theory to Practice in Urban Schools, 1-22. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2008. Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost Edwards, Carolyn P., Lella Gandini, and George E. Forman. The hundred languages of children: the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Norwood: Ablex Pub. Corp., 1993.

Exchange Press. "The Nature of School Gardesn." NACC Newsletter, Sep. - Oct. 2010.

Ford, Alan. Designing the sustainable school. Mulgrave, Vic.: Images Pub., 2007.

G. Jeffrey, MacDonald. "Natural playgrounds are growing into a national trend." USA Today, n.d., Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 16, 2011).

Gelfand, Lisa, and Eric Corey Freed. Sustainable school architecture: design for primary and secondary schools. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Haughwout, Andrew, James Orr, and David Bedoll. "The Price of Land in New York Metropolitan Area." Current Issues in Economics and Finance 14 (2008). http://newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci14-3.pdf (accessed October 24, 2011).

Ldpride.net. "Understanding Your Learning Styles." Learning Styles, Summer 2008.

Lee, James O. "Implementing High Standards In Urban Schools: Problems and Solutions." Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 6 (February 2003): 449. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 24, 2011).

McClurkin, William . School building planning. New York: Macmillan, 1964.

McGraw Hill Education. "Schools of the 21st Century." Supplement to the Architectural Record, January 2008.

Pipho, Chris. 1995. "Urban school problems and solutions." Phi Delta Kappan 77, no. 2: 102. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 15, 2011).

Rigolon, Alessandro, and Maxine Alloway. "Children and their development as the starting point."Education & Child Psychology 28, no. 1 (2011): 65-69.

Sanoff, Henry. Creating environments for young children. Raleigh: School Of Design, North Carolina State University, 1995.

Stoecklin, Randy White & Vicki. "Children's Outdoor Play & Learning Environments: Returning to Nature." White Hutchinson. http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/outdoor.shtml (accessed November 2, 2011).

University, American Schools &. "Outstanding Designs: Elementary School." School Design 1 (2008): 65 Swanson, Christopher. Cities in Crisis 2009. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education, Inc., 2009.

Vaughan, Ellen Larson, Steven Winter Associates, and NCEF. "Elementary School | Whole Building Design Guide." WBDG - The Whole Building Design Guide. http://www.wbdg.org/design/elementary.php (accessed September 16, 2011).

Wagner, Cheryl, and Douglas Gordon.Planning School Grounds for Outdoor Learning. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2010.

"American Architectural Foundation." American Architectural Foundation. http://www.archfoundation.org/aaf/aaf/School.Design.htm (accessed September 16, 2011).

Green school primer: lessons in sustainability.. Mulgrave, Vic.: Images Pub., 2009.

"NCEF Resource List: Urban School Facility Issues." National Clearinghouse for Educational m Facilities. http://www.ncef.org/rl/urban_issues.cfm (accessed September 16, 2011).

Appendices

ARC 601 Board 1

ARC 601 Board 2

ARC 601 Board 3

ARC 602 Board 1

ARC 602 Board 2

ARC 602 Board 3