The Essence of a School by Cambridge Design Research Studio

THE ESSENCE OF A SCHOOL DEFINING THE RELATIONSHIP OF INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SPACE IN PRIMARY SCHOOL DESIGN JAMES PURKISS DARWIN COLLEGE 30.07.2012 ESSAY 4 10394 WORDS An essay submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil examination in Environmental Design in Architecture (Option B)

ABSTRACT DESIGN RESPONSE

This design research aims to achieve a relationship of inside and outside space in the design of a new primary school on a restricted site in Camden, London that satisfies an established demand of contemporary policy and educational practice for greater outdoor activity and the shared use of inside and outside space. WRITTEN ANALYSIS

Taking the position of the architect the author identifies and seeks to resolve contrary imperatives for and against greater physical, perceptual and organisational openness in primary school design. A method of collage is employed in the writing and the production and presentation of images. The adopted two-column format juxtaposes written analysis and a description of the design response.

F0.00

TABLE OF CONTENTS 6-17

F0.01

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

PROPOSED SITE

TERMS

19-43

HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL CONTEXT

44-89

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT

90-91

CONCLUSION

92-93

BIBLIOGRAPHY

94-95

IMAGE REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION Contemporary educational policy and practice promote increased use of outside space in primary schools in response to a variety of imperatives (Thomson 2005). The conception of the outdoors as a learning environment is propagated by progressive educational theory that defines play as a learning activity (Billimore 1999). The argument for increased outdoor experience is supported by research showing the early-years of a child’s development to be the period of the most ‘rapid growth of physical and mental characteristics’ when children are of ‘greatest susceptibility to environmental influence’ and ‘deprivation has the most disastrous effect’ (Bengtsson 1970). However, children’s opportunities for outside play and their level of physical activity are decreasing (Brockman, Jago and Fox 2011). This trend is attributed to a cultural resistance to discomfort and intolerance of ‘bad’ weather (Maynard and Waters 2007) and social factors; safety fears, security concerns and the loss of outside play spaces (SPTC and Grounds for Learning 2010). Schools’ outside spaces have therefore been identified as increasingly important sites for ‘children’s environmental learning’ and physical activity (Malone and Tranter 2003).

Reflecting architectural research that identifies the influence of transitional spaces and boundary conditions on internal and external activity and the shared occupation of inside and outside space (Fisher 2004) (Kwon 2012), contemporary policy and practice also promote improved connection to outside space to facilitate greater outdoor activity (CABE 2010). The challenge faced by the architect, that which this research

The relationship of inside and outside space in a school is

seeks to resolve, is to establish a condition of physical and

subject to other contrary, cultural, political, and environmental

perceptual openness that negotiates these imperatives. For the

imperatives for and against greater openness. Furthermore,

pilot thesis the intellectual problem is approached through the

children’s experience of inside and outside space is defined as

design of a one-form entry primary school for seven to eleven

much by organisational factors and a ‘schools philosophy’ as by

year olds on a constrained site in Camden, London. Where

the physical environment (Maynard and Waters 2007).

space is limited the relationship of inside and outside space is critical to maximise their mutual didactic potential.

F1.00

METHODOLOGY

The extensive range of existing academic research this thesis intersects reflects the diversity of influences on the relationship of inside and outside space that have been identified. This field of research is most often concerned with proving the influence of the physical environment on academic attainment and defining the ideal environmental parameters for learning and comfort, attention and behaviour. The pursuit of homogenous environments that satisfy these parameters would deny the subjectivity of comfort and perception (Steane and Steemers 2004). The thesis identifies that the safeguarding of comfort, as defined by these parameters, is an important imperative against greater openness and the use of outside space in schools. The thesis asserts that the adoption of a ‘dynamic environmental strategy’, as proposed by Mary Ann Steane and Koen Steeemers in Environmental Diversity in Architecture, could overcome this imperative by providing ‘adaptive opportunities that allow occupants to engage with the building and take control of their environment’ (Steane and Steemers, 2004). By orchestrating ‘sequences or transitions’ between interior and exterior to create ‘stimulating settings’ where ‘occupants remain aware of the passage of time and weather’, this strategy could

The thesis proposes that the requirement of a school for

also satisfy the didactic potential of the school.

environmental diversity is related both to comfort and to didactic potential. The thesis responds to Hawkes’ challenge by seeking

Steane and Steemers relay Dean Hawkes’ challenge for the

to understand the ‘perceptual and operational relationships

field of environmental research: ‘the need to direct studies of

which occur in the total environment’ of a primary school that

user requirements towards the understanding of environmental

determine the experience of openness. The design proposal for

diversity, both spatial and temporal, and of the complex

a one-form entry primary school in Camden London is discussed

perceptual and operational relationships which occur in the total

alongside, and in response to, an exploration of historical and

environment’ (Steane and Steemers, 2004).”

contemporary conceptions of openness in school design and the imperatives for and against greater openness. The scheme for the conversion of existing buildings into a school aims to achieve a diversity of dynamic environments at the scale of the classroom and of the school.

F1.01

PROPOSED SITE

The site for the design proposal has been earmarked for the relocation of an existing infants school by the London Borough of Camden. The site area of 3181m2 is below the recommended site area according to Building Bulletin 99 for a 240 place primary school but within the minimum guideline for a primary school on a constrained site. The site is bordered by a railway viaduct to the south, a proposed 10 story development to the west, a four lane road to the north and the back gardens of semi-detached houses to the east. There are currently a variety of residential and warehouse buildings.

F1.02

F1.03 [Academic use only]

F1.04

There are 42 state-funded primary schools in Camden ranging from approximately 100 to 450 pupils. The above map shows the location of sports facilities and other community facilities in relation to the primary schools, shared use compensates somewhat for a lack of available space and facilities within individual schools (F1.04).

TORRIANO INFANTS SCHOOL PRIMROSE HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL

F1.05 The thesis refers to a case study of the influence of the weather on playground access and activity in two Camden primary schools as indicated on the above map. The proposed site is indicated by a red dot (F1.05).

[Academic use only]

F1.06

The site area of 29 of the 42 state funded primary schools in Camden is below the minimum guideline area for schools on a restricted site and with access to off-site playing fields (Building Bulletin 99). The minimum area is calculated according to the number of pupils. The playground area per pupil varies from 1.7 m2 to 21.6 m2 (F1.06); the average playground area per pupil in Camden is 9.3 m2. The area per pupil at Primrose is 9.7 m2 and 11.6 m2 at Torriano Infants School. Assuming that all of the roofs will be terraced the proposed playground area per pupil is 13m2.

TERMS

The research concerns the relationship of inside and outside space. Source texts use different designations of space; indoor and outdoor and interior and exterior are the most common. In this paper the terms â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;interior and exteriorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; are used to describe the qualities of inside and outside space.

The thesis concerns the qualities of physical and perceptual openness that characterise the relationship of inside and outside space. Openness is primarily discussed as a physical and perceptual quality of enclosure, a synonym of porosity; openness to the movement of people and air, translucency; openness to the perception of light, and transmittance; openness to the passage of sound.

It is acknowledged that openness, or open, is also used to describe other qualities of a school. Openness can be physical, spatial, environmental, organisational, programmatic or institutional. It is also understood that openness as a quality of

The thesis asserts that the experience of openness is dependent

enclosure is often used a symbol of those other conceptions

on non-physical boundaries that are related to the management

of openness. These reciprocal rhetorical and metaphorical

and organisation of space and a reflection of cultural and

associations are discussed in relation to the design proposal.

social practices and expectations. In the context of schools these non-physical boundaries are most often the product of adult supervision. The design proposal questions how these practices could be supported and adapted to sustain greater openness. A terminology is derived to articulate this conception of openness. The following are examples of terms that are used in the description of the design proposals; visual connectivity, perceptual openness, private sheltered corners.

F1.07

HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL CONTEXT

The following historical and theoretical discussion seeks to establish the reciprocal relationship of educational reform, which determines internal and external activity, and the conception and experience of openness in progressive school design.

It is not the intention to provide a chronological account of this aspect of school design since the development of thinking in relation to openness is not linear. Despite various anomalies,

The adopted design process reflects the non-linearity of the

the established relationship of inside and outside space in

history described. The proposal is not for an ideal school on a

mainstream school design has remained relatively constant.

virgin site as a model of an educational idea. The development of the proposal, like that of most existing schools, is defined by

This chapter will draw instead on historical precedents to

consecutive compromises resulting from the balance of contrary

describe various conceptions of inside and outside space that

imperatives.

characterise that relationship. In particular, the example of the Open-Air School Movement is used to introduce the ideas of ‘child-centred education’ and the definition of the school as a ‘garden’ that are still relevant to the conception and experience of openness today. Open-Air schools offer a useful precedent for

The design proposal responds to a new rhetoric of ‘child-centred

the negotiation of imperatives against greater openness and the

education’ and literally translates the conception of the school

perceptual and organisational relationships of a school.

as ‘garden’ by locating outside space in the gardens of existing houses.

F1.08

The relationship between internal and external space is dependent on the roles assigned to those spaces and the relative importance those activities are given in the organisation of education. The educationalist Charles Hooper proclaimed in 1660 that ‘there should be a paved court around the school, part of which should be ‘shedded or cloistered’ over to enable students to play outside in wet weather’ (Armitage, 2005). Defining the schools’ immediate exterior environment as a play space, Hooper’s conception of the ‘shedded or cloistered’ area demonstrates both the importance of play activity and of outside space rather than inside space for such activity. Although the ‘shedded or cloistered’ space is environmentally distinct from the adjacent inside and outside spaces and could therefore support a different range of activities, its limited purpose - designated as a space only for play - indicates that the relationship between inside and outside space is also limited. This reflects a long established division in the organisation of space and activity in schools.

Reflecting contemporary policy and practice the design proposal challenges the established division of space. Physically similar ‘shedded or cloisted’ lobby spaces are conceived as filters between inside and out rather than sheltered outside space.

F1.09

The relationship of internal and external space is also dependent on the extent to which the role of inside and outside space is shared. Hans Scharoun, a 20th century German architect whose U

few built schools (F1.11-12) and widely published unrealised

proposals influenced subsequent school design, believed that ‘the relationship of inside and outside space, of openness and unity, formed the essence of a school’ (Burke & Grosvenor, 2008). He regarded ‘walls and doors…as metaphorical as well as physical barriers to the potential flow and connectivity

believed to be crucial to the learning experience’ (Burke & Grosvenor, 2008). By implication, it is suggested that, as

well as physical openness allowing for the same activity to

occur between inside and outside spaces, different activities

in different spaces could benefit from increased perceptual openness or visual connectivity. F1.10B

Scharoun proposed different qualities of enclosure to accommodate children’s changing needs and ‘growing consciousness’ (Jones 1995) (F1.10A). The identities of the outside spaces of the design proposal are similarly distinct ((F1.10B); ‘nest like’ spaces for the youngest children (L), fully enclosed spaces for older children shared by multiple classes (M),

and simultaneously supervised terraces at a higher level for

the oldest with views to the ‘outside world’ (U).

F1.10A

F1.11

F1.12

The American architect Richard Neutra, a contemporary of Scharoun, similarly advocated the shared use of inside and outside space and the integration of adjacent outside space into the area defined as the classroom. His drawings show activity shared between inside and outside. In his illustrations and published photographs of Corona School (F1.13-1.16), an arc of chairs is shown from inside to outside. The concentration of activity outside and the relative emptiness of the interior (other than the objects of inhabitation), suggests that the inside space is conceived as a refuge when the outside space is not habitable, thus reinforcing the protective aspect of the interior and therefore the experience of enclosure.

F1.13

F1.14

F1.15

F1.16

The relationship of internal and external space is greatly influenced by the definition of play as a learning activity. The external space of a school, a space for play, is most often referred to as the playground, and the inside space, the classroom, a class being a group of people who meet to be taught. When this distribution of education is challenged, there is an impact on the relationship between inside and outside space. The definition of play as a learning activity is synonymous with progressive ideas of ‘child centred education’, focused on learning through play and the development of the child’s personality and identity (Saint, 1987). The development of these ideas coincided with the conception of the open-air school movement.

The Open-Air Schools of the early-twentieth century provide an important reference for this thesis due to the convergent influences of social health reform and progressive educational theory in their conception, a reflection of similar contemporary prerogatives, and because of the enduring impact in contemporaneous and subsequent mainstream school building of the educational reform and architectural innovation that was made both necessary and possible in the experimental context. Throughout literature regarding the movement, the varied use of the term ‘open-air’ to describe both a condition of architecture; ‘open-air design’, and an educational approach; ‘open-air classwork and activity’, reflects different conceptions of openness that were derived from the experiments.

F1.17 Children’s construction at Prestolee School 1937

The opportunity for similar, constructive, outdoor play opportunities is dependent of the perception and acceptance of risk. Risk is tolerated in managed play space. The courtyard spaces of the proposed school allow for shared supervision and could support similar constructive play opportunities.

Originating in Berlin in the 1890s, the Open-Air School movement saw the creation of open-air cure stations for children (Kindererholungsstätte) following investigations into the living conditions of tuberculosis sufferers. Described as a social disease, medically incurable tuberculosis was associated with lack of sunlight, fresh air, and insanitary living and working conditions, particularly in cities where high levels of migration from the countryside had lead to mass urbanization and slum conditions (Chatelet, 2008). It was believed that health and welfare could be improved through cleanliness, hygiene and exposure to sunlight and fresh air (Overy, 2006). Although early emphasis was on health care treatment, the movement was also influenced by educational theorists who advocate open-air teaching methods. Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852) is commonly referenced, he ‘envisaged the school as a garden in which the teacher lived with her children’ (MacDonald, 1918).

In line with the first open-air school established in a pine forest in a Berlin suburb in 1904 (F1.18), the early English open-air schools occupied temporary pavilions erected in parkland. The economy of the lightweight structures, exempt from building regulations, encouraged the proliferation of open-air schools in subsequent years (F1.19-20). The architectural historian Geraint Franklin suggests that the English open-air schools were characterised by an ‘anti-architectural’ response. He considers the preference for adaptable buildings to have been a reaction against the monumentality and inflexibility of existing, multistorey, masonry schools (Board of Education, 1933). Despite this, later, more permanent, architect-designed, schools followed the success of the early experiments. F1.18

F1.19

F1.20

The architectural historian, Anne-Marie Chatelet described the contradictory imperatives associated with the design of an openair school: ‘a building that would provide necessary protection from the weather together with internal spaces that would offer an open-air experience’ (Chatelet, 2008). The ‘challenge’ architecturally was to ‘build a protective envelope, while making its substance as immaterial as possible’ (Chatelet, 2008). One response to this challenge, to maximize the exposure of each classroom to sunlight and fresh air, was the development of separate block planning (Franklin, 2009). First employed at the Uffculme Open-Air School in 1911 (F1.21-22) and described as the ancestor to the ‘hen & chicks’ model: ‘single or paired classrooms grouped loosely around a central hall’, separate block planning was widely adopted in post-war primary schools, many of which are still in use today (English Heritage, 2010).

F1.21

F1.22

The open-air conditions of the architecture and health incentives necessitated the adoption and development of open-air teaching methods (F1.24-25). The experimental context insured that the impact of such educational innovation was recorded and disseminated. Although reports of the educational success of initial experiments were not conclusive, later accounts, such as that of educationalist Broughton, suggested that the open-methods were gaining popularity through the perceived success of the schools (Broughton, 1914). Questioning their success in his lecture, ‘A “non-evidence based” experiment in social health’, the historian Mike Emanuel promulgates that evidence to sustain the Open-Air School movement has never been substantiated (Emanuel, 2010). Identifying it as one of a number of ‘faith systems’ that had upheld ‘the belief that fresh air is health-promoting’ Emanuel argues that the experimental success of the schools was attributable largely to improved diet thereby challenging educationalist Neil MacDonald’s assumption of 1918 that; “…if normal children are placed under the same conditions, they will show a still greater improvement, due to their better physical status” (MacDonald, 1918). The implication of Emanuel’s argument is that the open-air ideology gained credibility in the educational context, as reflected in the recommendations of government reports in the 1930s, through the misperceived success of the experimental schools (F1.23). F1.23

F1.24 F1.25

The influence of the open-air schools on subsequent school building is difficult to define due to the temporary status of the experimental buildings. As such, it is also difficult to confidently draw a connection to the modernist themes that were influential on subsequent mainstream school building. Chatelet’s suggestion that the ‘long-standing influence’ of the open-air experiments on school construction in Europe may be explained by ‘convergence between the ideas applied in the experimental context of the open-air schools and those propagated by progressive architectural movements’ was supported by her proposal that interpenetration of inside and outside spaces in the schools corresponded with ‘spatial conceptions’ disseminated by ‘cubism and neoplasticism’ (Chatelet, 2008). In his book, Light, Air & Openness: Modern Architecture Between the Wars, Architectural historian Paul Overy explains that early twentiethcentury architecture was characterised by a preoccupation with ‘cleanliness, health, hygiene, sunlight, fresh air and openness’, consistent with Open-Air School movement ideals which ‘feature prominently in the written texts, photographs and films employed to promote the modern movement’ (Overy, 2006). The convergence of Modernist preoccupations and those ‘spatial conceptions’ was visibly distinct in the design of widelypublished European open-air schools at Suresnes, Paris by Eugène Beaudoin and Marcel Lods (F1.26-27) and Cliostraat, Amsterdam, Holland (F1.28-29). F1.28

F1.26

F1.27

F1.29

Following the discovery of the antibiotic streptomycin, a

F1.31

medicinal treatment for tuberculosis in 1944, few new open-air schools opened and many closed (Chatelet, 2008). Their demise may also be explained by the major improvements in public health following the creation of the National Health Service, improved nutrition, improved living conditions, slum clearances and the introduction of the ‘Clean Air Act’ of 1956 (Emanuel, 2010). No longer necessary for heath, open-air conditions could not be justified in response to a cultural resistance to discomfort. Open-air classrooms were considered ‘too distracting and uncontrollable’ and the weather ‘too unreliable’ (Overy, 2006), the official position arguing that ‘children can get ample fresh air by out of door activities’ (Emanuel, 2010). However, in the post-war period when the health advantages of ‘open-air design’ were negated by social and health reform, the legacy of the open-air schools was still present, reflected through the mainstream adoption of ‘open air class-work and activity’ and the increased importance given to school sites and the preference for single storey buildings that allowed for better access to outside space (Ministry of Education, 1945). Through the perceived empirical success of the schools, the conception of their grounds as a ‘garden’ gained popular credibility as reflected in the recommendations of pre-war reports and post-war policy and regulations. It was this conception of the school, proposed by Froebel and inseparable from the conception of ‘child centred education’, that has been a consistent influence on mainstream school building, which continues today.

F1.30

Post war policy concentrated on ensuring the connection to, and use of, outside space as opposed to achieving open-air conditions internally. Building Bulletin 1 of 1949, ‘New Primary Schools’, offers recommendations for the relationship between classrooms and ‘outdoor class spaces’ (Ministry of Education, 1955) (F1.33). The use of the term ‘outdoor class’ is an important designation, indicating the shared purpose of inside and outside and enforcing the notion of the outdoors as a space for learning. Although it is acknowledged that locating ‘outdoor class areas adjacent to class space makes teacher supervision easier’, it is also recommended that outdoor class spaces should be ‘treated individually’ and ‘screened by shrubs’ from the class spaces. The recommendations suggest that maintaining a comfortable internal environment is prioritised over the potential for simultaneous use of inside and outdoor class spaces. The guide promotes that class spaces should be afforded the best view of the site over ‘grass or planted area’ and recommends that views from class spaces over hard areas cause the ‘uncomfortable’ reflection of heat and sound and glare in sunny weather. The guide supports the notion of school grounds

The argument made in Building Bulletin 1 for the individual

as a garden propagated by the open-air school movement.

treatment of ‘outdoor class areas’ is to protect the internal

A discussion regarding the “desirability of access from class

environment and minimise disruption of the classroom. The

spaces to the garden”, which acknowledges the disadvantage of

isolation of the ‘outdoor class’, screened by shrubs’, creates a

draughts, reiterates a changing attitude to exposure, or ‘open-

distinct environment that would invite different types of activity.

air principles’, in the design of internal spaces in the post-war

The design proposal aims for a similar diversity of outside

period.

spaces, adjacent to and isolated from the class base. The design seeks to balance the same demand for supervision and

F1.32

the maintenance of a comfortable internal environment through the lobbying of the classrooms and courtyards.

F1.32 Plan of James Peacock Primary School, 1966-7. The penetration of courtyard spaces into the centre of the plan increases the area of exterior enclosure and allows for multiple directions of simultaneous supervision of inside and outside space.

F1.33

The open-air schools were designed to achieve physical

F1.34

openness, to expose children to the beneficial elements. In doing so they produced a condition of almost total perceptual openness, walls that were not open were more often than not glazed or screened. The children would have experienced the noise of the rain on the lightweight roofs of the temporary building, the muffling effect of snow on the projection of sound, the glare of the sun on wet surfaces, the smell of moist grass, their papers blown off their desks in the wind. To overcome these potential ‘distractions’ of the environment in a situation where there was little enclosure, the educationalist Broughton had cause to question which was the best way to orientate the class (Broughton, 1914) (F1.34). In a condition of almost total perceptual openness where the focus of attention is diffused, the space does not readily support a front-facing form of teaching. Broughton’s descriptions and illustrations of outdoor classes suggest how activity could be adjusted to take advantage of this perceptual openness.

This transparency of the inside space was in stark contrast to the relative opacity that characterised previous school building. The windows of the heavy masonry Victorian schools that preceded the open-air schools were above the heads of the children. The windows were large, offering considerable ventilation and light but were intended to limit perceptual openness to avoid distraction from the primary function the

In his essay titled ‘Dissolving the School’, the architect Tijl Vanmeirhaeghe describes the ‘ambiguous and uncomfortable’ relationship between school and façade (Vanmeirhaeghe, 2007). He asserts that it is important for a school to make an ‘outward show’ of its care for its pupils, without this distracting from its seclusion. He identifies the potentially contradictory imperatives and consequences of increased façade translucency in relation to care, the notion of ‘child centred education’, and the perception of the institution of the school. To achieve symbolic translucency at the expense of the necessary seclusion could be seen to contradict the belief central to ‘child centred education’ that ‘buildings must be at the service of the child’ and ‘must not overawe or inhibit or distract for the sake of some ideal of authority or proportion.’ Vanmeirhaeghe suggests that as the notion of care has evolved from ‘order and discipline’ to ‘openness and hominess, light, hygiene and ingenuity’ the size of windows, the order of transparency, has become a measure for the degree in which the school is committed to the child’s development. This translucency, characteristic of the post-war schools including the Smithson’s Hunstanton School (F1.35) which is the subject of the essay, was presented by the Smithson’s as the ‘material upshot of new educational needs’ in contrast to the previous school buildings where the ‘soundness of upbringing’, the experience of order and discipline, was symbolised by the ‘systematically punched gaps in the massive school façade.’

Vanmeirhaeghe suggests that the glazed school has lost its ‘rhetorical clout’ and thus its ‘aura of caringness’ because it

CONCLUSION

has become the standard. No longer seen as the ‘new school

The historical and theoretical discussion has established the

replacing old Victorian models,’ he argues that the glazed school

reciprocal relationship of education reform and the conception

has been ‘absorbed into the obvious’. He proposes that the new

and experience of openness in school design. The similarity

rhetoric of the caring institution is expressed in an ‘interactive

of historical and contemporary imperatives against greater

and flexible’ architecture, ‘forced open’ to allow ‘the outside

openness suggests that historical school designs that sought to

world to enter’ and enable greater ‘parent participation’.

negotiate these imperatives, like the Open-Air schools, can be useful and relevant precedents for contemporary school design. It has been shown that the symbolic association of openness in school design and the concept of ‘child centred education’ are changing and that the rhetoric of the ‘glazed school’ is redundant. It is suggested that spatial and organisational openness may have greater impact on the experience of openness in the contemporary context. 42

F1.35

F2.00

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT

This chapter addresses the influence on school design of contemporary policy and curriculum recommendations regarding the use of outdoor space and the connection to interior space. Imperatives for and against greater openness are discussed with a focus on the contrary influence of the sustainability agenda on outdoors activity and school design. The perceptual and organisational relationships that determine the experience of openness are also analysed in relation to the physical environment of schools.

Contemporary policy advocates the extension of the area of ‘learning’ between inside and outside spaces. Curriculum guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage, for children up to five years of age, says that where possible, inside and outside environments should be linked ‘so that children can move freely between them’ (Ofsted, 2008). The Ofsted (The Office for Standards in Education) publication ‘Learning Outside the Classroom: How far should you go?’ reports;

“In the best instances, the pupils had the freedom to move between the different places purposefully and with autonomy, hardly noticing whether they were in a classroom or not. They were ‘just learning’, with staff ready to give appropriate support when needed.” (Ofsted, 2008)

This attitude to the shared occupation of inside and outside space is informed by contemporary research that reflects a long tradition of pedagogical theory in advocating a more ‘play-based approach’, particularly for younger children. In proposing that such change will have implications for the design of more flexible spaces, the CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) publication ‘Creating Excellent Primary Schools’ references the ‘Rose Review of the Primary Curriculum’ (2009) which suggests that the transition from the early years to Key Stage 1 could be improved by a more ‘play-based approach’ (CABE, 2010).

3FE variation

Classbases can be connected for team teaching and larger group activities

Landscape ‘cushion’ spaces between buildings

Verandah and shading for 2FE summer sun

(core) plan

courtyard and playground

‘Quiet’ fresh air and view of the sky

Calm, smaller teaching spaces

breakout room/shared resource room

Light and ventilation chimney ‘green lung’

Landscape Alternative site creates variations for weather 1, 2 and 3FE

Translucent roof creates usable outside space and

ICT facilities integrated into design of classroom

Covered outside classroom extension of teaching area

Wet play area connected to outside classroom

Interactive whiteboard

corridor and quiet spaces

classbase

outside classroom

landscape and gardens

Sketch perspective looking from head’s office into creative space

1FE variation

KS1 or KS2

KS2

Reception

Sketch perspective from bottom corner of site

49m2

57m2

acoustic barrier to classroom

Acoustic partition

Shared teaching/corridor

Toilets

Shared teaching/quiet area

Wet area

63m2

Movable wall allowing different sizes of classroom

0 ‘Break out’ area

F2.01 Extract of a proposal by Cottrel + Vermeulen Architecture for an ‘exemplar’ primary school showing a diversity of inside and outside spaces and associated activities adjacent to a ‘classbase’.

Contemporary policy regarding the use of outside space reflects the ideals of the Reggio Approach, a progressive educational movement originating in Reggio Emilia, Italy in 1950’s. The environmental and spatial criteria of the Reggio Approach, as outlined by Giulio Ceppi and Michelle Zini in ‘Children, Spaces, Relations’ (1998), shares many similarities with the criteria for environmental diversity as proposed by Steemers and Steane in ‘Environmental Diversity in Architecture’ (2004). A criteria for environmental diversity is proposed to maximise the didactic potential of every space of the school through an understanding of children’s behaviour, sensory awareness and learning practices.

The book reflects current trends in educational theory, policy and practice towards increased outside activity and the promotion of play based learning, particularly in the earlier years. The criteria for diversity proposed in ‘Children, Spaces, Relations’ resonates with the requirement of the DFES ‘Foundation Stage Curriculum’ that a climate is created ‘where curiosity is encouraged and where children can experience the unexpected’ (Merrick, 2006). The ‘Foundation Stage Curriculum’ similarly insists that environments, materials and experiences are provided that ‘promote aesthetic awareness and an appreciation of things of beauty’ (Merrick, 2006 (F2.04-2.04). Ceppi and Zini also promote the popular idea that learning experiences should be self-lead, leading to the dispersal of classes and the requirement of class spaces, both internal and external, to support simultaneous, potentially incompatible, activity. Contemporary policy and progressive educational theory are shown to promote the opportunity for activity to occur freely between inside and outside space. This freedom of movement also satisfies the criteria for environmentally diverse architecture; that people should be able to select their immediate environment from a spectrum, through which it is possible to achieve comfort.

F2.02

F2.04

F2.03

F2.06

F2.05

In support of a policy that encourages the shared occupation of

F2.07

inside and outside space, there has been a recent proliferation in retrofit school canopies, particularly adjacent to nursery and reception classes (F2.07). Marketing statements for canopy suppliers refer to the ‘OFSTED requirement for outdoor learning’ and quote the Building Bulletin 71’The Outdoor Classroom’;

“Overhead elements such as a roof canopy create a sense of enclosure and refuge... somewhere to sit or play, to feel, secure from the rain pattering on the roof or the sun blazing down and yet to be part of an outdoor world rather than be confined to a building. It is another means of encouraging greater use throughout the year.” (Department for Education and Employment, 1999)

This statement reflects the findings of analysis of the influence of the weather on playground access and break-time activity in two inner London primary schools, Torriano Infants School and Primrose Hill Primary School. Rain was shown to have the greatest disruptive influence on playground access and the ‘blazing’ sun was shown to have the greatest impact on break-time activity. Marketing statements that refer to Cancer Research UK’s Sun Smart campaign for schools play on a growing paranoia of the risk of skin cancer for young children. Between March and September, the schools were found to restrict outdoor activity to shaded areas of the playground, canopies, boundary conditions and under trees.

In her study ‘Territorialising the Primary School Playground: Deconstructing the Geography of Playtime’ Sarah Thompson describes how boys and girls occupy outside space differently;

“Girls would claim and occupy walled areas and areas of seating which gave them a sense of privacy. They would use these for their dancing performances. Boys often kept large open areas to themselves for football.’’ (Thomson, 2005)

Solar studies of the two schools (F2.10-11), showing that shaded spaces were concentrated at the margins of the playgrounds and that open areas where football is played are more exposed, suggests that the response to sunlight has a greater impact on the activity of boys.

F2.08 ‘Even large shrubs and quite small trees can create intimate shaded spaces for younger pupils’ (Billimore 1999)

F2.09 Solar study of the proposed site an existing buildings, without roofs or internal floors, showing the cumulative solar radiation at ground floor level for a typical school day in March.

F2.10

F2.11

It could be argued that the required flexibility, or necessary

Some of the proposed classrooms are below the minimum

ambiguity, in the organisation of inside and outside space is

guideline area as set out in Building Bulletin 99. It is my

inhibited by the area guidelines set out in Building Bulletin

proposal that the limited area of the classrooms will be

99 ‘Briefing Framework for Primary Schools’ (Department

supplemented by additional adjacent space, on different levels

for Education and Skills, 2006). Although these guidelines

(F2.12). Collectively these spaces, which are simultaneously

are non-statutory, the allocation and definition of space in the

supervisable, would be above the minimum guideline area. This

design of new and refurbished schools, from feasibility through

arrangement allows for a diversity of spaces and environments

to realisation, is most often enforced in accordance with, or in

to be created that could maximise the potential use of the

reference to, these guidelines. Despite the offer of ‘area ranges

available limited space. Adhesion to the guidelines, requiring

over and above this minimum to allow schools flexibility in the

the enlargement of spaces and their replication, would exceed

design of their buildings and the way in which they use them’, as

the available area and impinge further on the available outside

with many such guidelines these minimum requirements often

space.

become constraining targets where financial restrictions apply. Where the design is required to adhere to these guidelines it would be difficult to justify a spatial organisation that defines flexible class zones which extend to adjacent circulation areas, shared ancillary spaces and outside areas, where the boundaries of the classrooms are difficult to define and are in isolation below the guideline area.

3 4

2 F2.12 Typical classroom arrangement 1 Class base 2 Lobby 3 Mezzanine 4 Terrace 5 Courtyard 6 Playground

A current trend in school planning is the organisation of classrooms around an internal hub or heart, a multifunctional breakout space with the aim of increasing connectivity between class groups and children of different ages that can concentrate

The architect Mark Dudek describes the potential of spatial

class activity internally rather than externally. It could be argued

loops to mitigate for the lack of available outside space (Dudek,

that the organisational impetus of progressive education thinking

2000) (2.15). The connection of the courtyards and playground

can also contradict the pursuit of greater openness.

by the shared space of the school allows for such spatial loops. The available space is perceived as the maximum distance of an unbroken loop through connected spaces (F2.16). Similarly, in the street playground it is proposed that it will be possible to weave in and out of the existing boundary wall.

Ground floor plan of core 2FE design

First floor plan

45 amphitheatre

15 31

outdoor classroom

10 20 (art)

20 (food) 9

11 6 8

parking

‘Different play spaces influence different patterns of movement in children.’

heart of school

outdoor class

courtyard

44 19

31 (work)

26 pupil entrance

6 5

(quiet)

8 1

45 36

24 26

39 33

21 42 37

nursery court

4 nursery entrance

entrance

public square disabled parking bus stop

cycle racks

F2.13 For key to plans see inside front cover

F2.15 F2.13-4 Proposal by Walters and Cohen Architects for an ‘exemplar’ primary school including a central heart space. Cross-section (top) and views of core 2FE design F2.14

F2.16 Proposed ground floor plan Showing possible spatial loops

Beyond the immediate boundary of enclosure, contemporary

One way of translating the success of the ‘forest’ schools in

policy promotes the conception of school grounds as a vital

an urban context is the creation of natural habitats through

resource for curriculum based learning. Furthermore Building

the planting of trees. Trees have also been shown to improve

Bulletin 71, ‘The Outdoor Classroom’, calls for a greater diversity

access to outside space by providing shade and shelter. The

of outside spaces (Department for Education and Employment,

proposal includes the retention of existing trees and the planting

1999). The CABE publication ‘Creating Excellent Primary

of new trees along the middle of the existing street to provide the

Schools’ similarly suggests that investing in ‘stimulating and

maximum shaded area (F2.18).

creative’ places in school grounds, which support ‘curriculum based learning’, can offer children ‘rich and varied experiences that may not be available to them at home’ (CABE, 2010). This statement reflects the commonly held perception that children’s opportunities for outdoor play are diminishing.

Reflecting this conception of outside space and reaction to the perceived lack of outdoor experiences for young children, experimental ‘forest’ schools have been established which draw influence from established Scandinavian schools where children are thought as much of possible outside (F2.17). Like the ‘Open-Air’ schools, the perceived success of these experimental schools has caused educators to question how these methods could be translated to mainstream schools and in an urban context (Knight, 2011).

F2.17 58

F2.18 Proposed ground floor plan Red dashes indicate habitat areas

Initiated by government policy, the diversification of the playground to increase the learning potential of the school site has been seen to have reduced the available space for play at break times (Thomson, 2005).

The case study showed that to mitigate the lack of available space, partly as a result of this diversification, playground access for different age groups was carefully scheduled. Where classrooms are adjacent to the playground scheduling of play activity and of break times can greatly impact the relationship between inside and outside space. The incompatibility of simultaneous activity inside and outside by different groups, boisterous playground games and concentrated class work, could be an imperative for greater enclosure. Where this scheduling of simultaneous activity is necessary, where the

The proposal addresses the imperative for increased enclosure

available space is constrained, this incompatibility is critical. The

of the incompatibility of simultaneous activity inside and outside.

scheduling of playground access also removes the potential

All but two of the classrooms are directly exposed to the main

opportunity for children of different ages and from different class

playground, an existing street, which is accessed via the

groups to mix, even if that exchange is remote, as in the case of

communal â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;piazzaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; space of the school (F2.21). All classrooms

split playgrounds.

open directly onto adjacent courtyard spaces. The year one and two classrooms, which are adjacent to the main playground, occupy the masonry shells of existing houses, whose front

F2.20

facades are punctured by relatively small windows. This hard playground edge is in contrast to the open arrangement at the rear of the classrooms which are open to a breakout space and which enjoy direct access to courtyard gardens.

F2.21 Proposed ground floor plan Class bases shaded red 1 Nursery 2 Reception 3 Key Stage 1 4 Key Stage 2

5 Piazza 6 Kitchen 7 Courtyard 8 Playground

3 7

1 7 2 8

F2.21

In his essay ‘The Influence of School Architecture and Design on

The greater the proximity of the boundary of inside and outside

the Outdoor Play Experience within the Primary School’ the play

space to the boundary of the school and the street, the greater

expert Marc Armitage identifies that the stepped plans of older

the imperatives against openness; security, pollution and

schools’ delineated spaces in the playground, the particular

noise. In the urban context, where the site boundary is already

dimensions of which allow them to be easily appropriated for

defensive, and where translucency can lead to underuse of the

specific games (Armitage, 2005). This enclosure insulates these

adjacent playground area, there may be a good argument to

games from other potentially disruptive activities. He proposes

create a harder, opaque edge, as a substitute for those hard

that the external wall of the school building, the boundary

edges that are eliminated from the buildings’ enclosure.

between interior and outside space, is therefore capable of creating places and supporting activity, irrespective of the

The proposed playground - the existing street - is separated

degree of openness. These stepped plans have, however, also

from public space by boundary buildings with a public function

been identified as a bullying risk as they inhibit supervision.

(F2.23). These spaces provide the necessary isolation of the playground to allow unrestricted access to the limited available

The surface of the boundary will also influence the activity it

outside space without creating a defensive exterior boundary

can support. In his analysis of the play practices at one primary

to the school. The programmatic ambition of these spaces

school, Armitage identifies a downpipe that has been used by

reflects Vanmeirhaeghe’s suggestion that the new rhetoric of

multiple generations as the base for a variation of the game

the carrying institution is expressed in the openness of school

of hide and seek. A brick wall, without breakable windows, will

buildings to the ‘outside world’ to facilitate greater parent

lend itself to ball games, and painted wall to chalk drawings etc

participation. The main entrance to the school adjacent to the

(F2.22). An open transparent school, without the diversity of

market area at the south of the site, a semi-outside space

surfaces would lack this learning potential. The requirement for a

sheltered by the railway arch, is conceived as a transitional

diversity of surfaces is a potential imperative against openness.

space that can open both to the public and to the school (F2.25). It is a meeting space, a gallery for the school to communicate

A potentially negative impact of the dissolving of the interior and

with parents and the public through the display of work and a

exterior boundary, of extending the zone of the class into the

meeting venue . The minimal elements of enclosure provide

playground, is that this diversification than can lead to the loss of

shelter from the wind and rain. The boundary building that spans

play opportunities (Thomson, 2005). It is necessary to consider

the space between an existing boundary wall to the playground

the balance between openness and transparency, to maximise

and a new pedestrian route, is conceived as a library space for

the didactic potential of the interior and exterior in combination

the shared use of the school and parents with children out of

and facilitate supervision, and opacity and hardness, to support

school hours (2.24). The building is transparent to the public

a diversity of outdoor games.

and allows for controlled views into the playground. The quiet first floor space, removed from the street, is conceived as a tree house in the canopy of the new trees.

F2.22

F2.23 Ground floor plan Boundary buildings shaded red

F2.24

F2.25

View of the library from the playground

View of the playground and library through the entrance building

The OFFSTED publication ‘Learning Outside the Classroom:

The proposal is for the retention and adaptation of the existing

How far should you go?’ reports that ‘some schools have

buildings that define a diversity of environmental and spatial

made an explicit link between the use of school grounds and

conditions that could be adapted to the needs of the new

sustainable development’ promoting ‘pupils understanding that

school. The proposal is to define spaces both inside and outside

care for their immediate surroundings is the first step in caring

of the existing boundaries of enclosure by introducing new

for their planet’ (Ofsted, 2008). The ambition to engender an

threshold screens. Peter Fisher describes the ‘highly articulated

environmental consciousness, as a product of the sustainability

transitional filters’ of Terragni’s St Elia school, ‘not merely as

agenda, could be translated into a desire for a greater

a series of two dimensional layers but as three-dimensional

physical and perceptual connection to the immediate outside

volumes that help to elaborate key spatial relationships and

environment. The corresponding increase in the porosity and

encourage particular patterns of activity.’ My conception of the

translucency of school buildings could reflect a new rhetoric of

screens is similar. Variations in the depth and orientation of the

openness.

screens will create microclimatic and spatial conditions that will support a diversity of activites. In ‘Children, Spaces and

Conversely, It could be argued that the sustainability agenda,

Relations’ Guilio Ceppi and Michele Zini underscore the ‘value

through the pursuit of reduced energy consumption, has

of transparency’, particularly on a spatial level (Ceppi & Zini,

indirectly had a negative impact on the experience of openness

1998). They advise that ‘transparency does not exclude opacity’.

because of the increased isolation, insulation and interiorisation

Starting with a condition of absolute transparency, the collages

of the classroom environment. The adoption of passive

are an attempt to simulate how the objects of occupation and

ventilation strategies, in particular those that rely on ceiling

the effects of the environment interrupt this transparency and

vents, can result in the permanent closure of windows (F2.26).

provide the necessary opacity thus ensuring ‘a sense of the

Coupled with the introduction automatic building management

depth of field and the perception of space (F2.24).David Kohn

systems, the opportunity for users - the teachers and children

describes the effect of the a use of reflection at Terragni’s St Elia

– to manipulate the environment of the classroom reduces the

School as ‘a dynamic collage of fragments of real and illusionary

degree of porosity of enclosure.

space’ (Kohn, TBC). The collages are an attempt to achieve a similar dynamic ambiguity by framing glazing ‘against a backdrop of partial shadow’. Through anticipating this opacity of occupation I intend to retain the transparency and adaptability of the screens. The collages also show the potential of translucent surfaces as screens for the projection of light.

F2.26

F2.27

Ceppi and Zini also propose that a school should have a specific identity, an ‘architectural language’ and ‘precise identity’ that is instantly recognisable (Ceppi & Zini, 1998). The proposal is to retain the masonry and plaster walls of the existing buildings but to remove the existing floor and roofs. The lightweight screens, the timber construction of which will be clearly distinguishable from the existing masonry walls, will define enclosure in the amalgamated building. The distinct identity of the screens, articulated according to according to location and orientation, will provide the required recognisability (F2.28).

F2.28

F2.29

The articulation of the screens will determine the experience of the weather and appreciation of the climate from the inside spaces. F2.30 shows the effect of the rain on the view through adjacent vertical and sloping glazing. F2.31 shows the mud spattered trace of a past rain shower on floor mounted glazing.

F2.30

F2.31

F2.32 Ptototype of roof glazing which holds a small amount of rain. A rain gauge of sorts. The thin film of water produces spectrum effects as shown.

F2.33 Observations of the roof glazing prototype in windy and calm conditions.

F2.34 Extracts from a series of photographs showing the experience of a rain shower beneath a glazed roof.

F2.33

F2.34

Ceppi and Zini propose that a school should be ‘open to modification by the children’ and that their presence should be revealed in a ‘second skin made of writings, images, materials, objects, and colors’ (Ceppi and Zini 1998). The design proposal seeks to support this potential both inside and outside. F2.33 is a study of external screens that can be modified and decorated by the children.

F2.33

F2.36 76

As well as defining a diversity of environments, the existing spaces - warehouses, passage, street, houses and domestic gardens - have specific associations that will relate the school to the wider context (F2.36). They therefore contribute to the conception of the school as a ‘microcosm’ of the city, as propagated by Herman Herzberger amongst others, and satisfy the ‘fundamental concept’ of the Reggio Approach of the school: that architecture should embody the relationship of the school and its context through ‘osmosis’ of surrounding ‘aesthetics’ and ‘the distribution of space’ (Ceppi & Zini, 1998).

There is a hierarchy to the existing buildings and spaces and a clear differentiation of front and back that could influence the organisation of the school and perception of new spaces. The retention of existing domestic thresholds between the playground and classrooms, for example, could exaggerate the domestic quality of the classroom, as a space that belongs to

The physical characteristics of the inside and outside spaces of

Where the area of the class zone is allowed to extend beyond

a school provide a framework for adult supervision. The limiting

the interior classroom the definition of its boundaries, for the

parameters of space and available activities to children are

purposes of supervision, is vague. In wet weather the wet/dry

often governed by long established rules and are affected by the

line cast by a canopy or overhanging roof could be appropriated

availability and authority of the supervisors who uphold them.

as a temporary boundary. As previously discussed in response

Similarly, the impact of the weather on the use of outside space

to Charles Hooper’s proclamation regarding the provision

is largely dependent on the perception of adults. As identified

of covered areas, the position of the canopy adjacent to the

in a report by SPTC (Scottish Parent Teacher Council) and

classroom, in concentrating activity against an established

the charity ‘Grounds for Learning’, the weather is a significant

boundary, could limit the scope of potential activity. The extents

limiting factor of outside activity in schools (SPTC and Grounds

of connected hard surfaces, perhaps in conjunction with key

for Learning, 2010). Analysis of the influence of the weather

division of the façade could be used to define boundaries.

on playground access and break time activity in two inner

The area defined is always dependent on supervision. If the

London primary schools, Torriano Infants School and Primrose

boundaries are public, with the street, then the supervision is

Hill Primary School, showed that children were allowed to play

likely to be stricter.

outside in almost all weather conditions if dressed appropriately. This attitude is epitomised by Trish, a senior playground

My proposal is to extend the classrooms into private courtyards

supervisor at Torriano Infants School, who said on a walk

in the back gardens of the existing houses (F2.38). There, as

around the playground on a wet afternoon ‘A bit of rain won’t

when the houses were homes, children will be able to make the

harm them!’. These findings are in contrast to Trisha Maynard

space their own and explore the margins without having to refer

and Jane Waters claim in ‘Learning in the outdoor environment:

to non-physical boundaries. This space will benefit from shared

a missed opportunity?’ that for some teachers the idea of

supervision on a number of axis. Although the children will

being outside for an extended period of time may have been

find privacy at the base of a tree or against one of the existing

‘anathema’ (Maynard & Waters, 2007). They suggest that the

garden walls on at least one axis they will be overlooked.

reluctance to let children go outside ‘throughout the year and in all weathers’, although related to a lack of resources, may reflect a ‘cultural resistance to the perceived discomforts of the outdoor

F2.37

environment and a concern to protect children, and themselves,

The plan of the Diana Municipal Preschool in Reggio Emilia. The enclosed court-

from these discomforts.’ They relate this ‘cultural resistance to

yards are linked by communal spaces.

discomfort’ to the claim that, compared to other countries, the outdoor environment is not a central feature of the UK’s cultural identity. The marketing statements for school canopies, it could be argued, reflect a cultural resistance to discomfort in referring to the ‘extremes of weather’ and ‘the unpredictable climate’.

F2.38

F2.39

F2.39 Lavender Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Centre by John McAslan and Partners. The deep timber screen is transparent from the front and opaque from the side creating alcoves for separate activity. F2.40-43 Sketch model of a stepped classroom corner which is similarly transparent in one direction and opaque in another. The alcoves, lit by reflected south light, are articulated with simple furniture.

F2.40

F2.41

F2.42

F2.43

My vision of the courtyards, that are visually and physically linked to the public spaces of the school, is inspired by the concept for Terragni’s St Elia School (F2.44-45) as described by Peter Fisher in his essay ‘Experiencing climate; architecture and environmental diversity’; a spatially ambiguous ‘physically external space (with a real sky)’ that is ‘read as a room within the building’ (Fisher, 2004). David Kohn describes how the ‘framing of the playroom and garden’ by the hole cut in the entry façade ‘collapses the spaces of play central to the school, both physically and psychologically, onto the schools public face’ (Kohn, TBC) In my proposal the equivalent view of the entrance, framed by the railway arch, encompasses the street, playground, and the existing houses, classrooms. Through isolation and occupation these spaces, the characteristics of which refer to the city, are defined and perceived as a space for play. F2.44

F2.45

Contrary to expectation, the analysis of outside activity at

A lobby is a transitional space where people prepare themselves

Torriano Infants School and Primrose Hill School showed that

for a change of environment. In a school children may change

where canopied areas were accessed indirectly from nursery

their shoes and clothes there. It is a place where interior and

spaces, free access to outside space was allowed in a greater

exterior conditions mix. Children may hang up their coats to dry

range of conditions. At Torriano, where the canopies, although

and wipe their feet on the mat when coming in on a rainy day.

physically adjacent to the nursery and reception rooms, are

The surfaces of the lobby are adapted to this mix. In his 1981

accessed via a lobby, outside access is almost constant. This

review of Yateley Newlands Primary School, Dean Hawkes

arrangement is reliant on the separate supervision of the inside

describes the ‘gradual transition’ from the outside achieved by

and outside spaces. At Primrose, where the nursery rooms open

the continuation inside the building of ‘external finishes such

directly to the playground, access is more restricted. In cold

as timber soffit boarding and brick paving’ (Hawkes, 1981).

weather in particular, the insulation of the interior is prioritised;

The ‘external’ robust quality of the spaces he describes are

the doors are kept closed and the children are kept inside.

consistent with those of a lobby. I propose to create a similar lobby-like condition, without spatial restriction (F2.48). The shared practical areas at Torriano, which form a lobby to the playground for adjoining class bases, are a good precedent for this spatial arrangement. The robust surface of the practical rooms, in contrast to the class bases, is a continuation of the exterior hardness required to support messy practical activity. In my proposal, this practical lobby space is not self-contained. The shared circulation space linking the classrooms to the shared spaces of the school and the courtyard gardens is defined as the lobby, where practical facilities, sinks and work surfaces, are located within the visual axis of each class. This arrangement

F2.47

avoids the compartmentalisation of space that would otherwise be necessary. The arrangement protects the class base as a space where greater control and isolation of the environment is required.

I propose that the lobby space will overcome the need for canopies. The lobby space - the environment of which, like a canopy, is an approximation of the outside environment - will support similar activity and allow children to feel close to the weather (F2.47). The retention and planting of trees and the articulation of the new screens will create deep shade. As opposed to canopies that only enable the use of a small part of the outside space in bad weather, I hope that the proposed lobby, by embracing the courtyards, will enable the use and enjoyment of a larger area.

F2.48

Proposed ground floor plan Lobbies shaded red 1 Nursery 2 Reception 3 Key Stage 1 4 Key Stage 2

5 Piazza 6 Kitchen 7 Courtyard 8 Playground

3 7

1 7 2 8

The site area is within the minimum requirement, as defined by Building Bulletin 99, for a school on a restricted site. The chosen site is justified by the commitment to provide an area of outside space almost equivalent to the total site area, thus requiring the majority of roof spaces to be terraced. The proposal must therefore allow for openness vertically as well as horizontally. The provision of outside space above classrooms would usually prevent the simultaneous use of both inside and outside space. The proposal is for terraces to be collectively accessible from the central shared space of the school and individually accessible from each classroom via a mezzanine (F2.49). These quiet mezzanine spaces, conceived as winter gardens that trap heat in the winter and aid stack ventilation in the summer, are supervisable from the classrooms. This arrangement could avoid the potentially unproductive isolation of SEN (Special Educational Needs) provision by providing a space for private work and separate supervision with a close relationship to outside space.

As previously discussed, in ‘Dissolving the School’, Vanmeirhaeghe makes the connection between the translucency of a schools façade and the caring impression of the institution (Vanmeirhaeghe, 2007). Perhaps, particularly for older schools, the same could be said of school roofs, under which the children are sheltered from the weather. There is rhetorical association to be capitalised by containing an entire institution ‘all under one roof’. The adoption of flat roof construction makes the roof largely invisible and potentially negates this symbolic potential. It could be argued that the proliferation of canopies, which visibly make outside space available by providing shelter from the rain

My proposal is to remove the existing pitched roofs of the

and shade from the sun, represent a new rhetoric of the carrying

houses and warehouse buildings that will be converted into

institution.

the school. The absence of roofs from buildings that you would expect to have them will make explicit the decision to allow the weather in, closer to the interior spaces and within reach of the children. Enclosure is defined on a smaller scale, individually rather than collectively.

F2.49

Proposed first floor plan Mezzanines shaded red 1 Nursery 2 Reception 3 Key Stage 1 4 Key Stage 2 5 Staff Room

3 3

1 2

CONCLUSION It has been shown that the influence of contemporary policy on the use of outside space and the connection to inside space in school design has resulted in the proliferation of canopies and the diversification of the playground. The analysis suggests that these developments have had a mixed impact on the experience of environmental diversity and outside activity.

The sustainability agenda is shown to have a contrary influence on the conception of openness, both encouraging greater outside experience and the simultaneous interiorisation of the classroom environment.

Analysis of the physical environment of schools has shown that boundaries are important to define outside places in support of different types of play and that the layering of boundaries, to form lobbies between inside and outside space, contrary to expectation, increases opportunities for outside activity. This reflects the indentified cultural resistance to discomfort that leads to the safeguarding of the classroom environment. The analysis suggests that school design should pursue perceptual rather than physical openness that allows for the simultaneous supervision of internal and external space and the perception of the weather and maximum access to outside space to achieve the greatest didactic potential of the school.

F2.50

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION It has been shown that the influence of contemporary policy on the use of outdoor space and the connection to internal space in school design has resulted in the proliferation of canopies and the diversification of the playground. The analysis suggests that these developments have had a mixed impact on the experience of environmental diversity and outdoor

The pilot thesis has provided a theoretical basis for considering

activity. In support of supervision, starting from a condition of multi

the relationship of inside and outside space in a primary schools

The sustainability agendathe is shown have a contrary on the directional openness, designtoproposal affordsinfluence the opportunity

and a practical understanding of the contrary imperatives for

conception of be openness, both encouraging outdoor experience for space to compartmentalised andgreater for transparent

and against openness. In support of the design project, this

and the simultaneous interiorisation the classroom environment. boundaries to be obscured. The of creation of closed corners in

critical and practical understanding has encouraged productive

Analysis of thewith physical of schools shown‘connectivity’ that boundarcombination openenvironment views allows for thehas desired

questioning of the proposals. These have been judged in relation

ies are important definecreating outside places in supportplaces of different types between spacestowhilst concentrated within those

to criteria for openness and environmental diversity, derived from

of play and that the layering of boundaries, to form lobbies between spaces.

the critical and practical analysis, with the aim of achieving the

inside and outside space, contrary to expectation, increases opportuni-

maximum didactic potential of the school through balancing a

ties outside activity. This reflects indentified cultural resistance Thefor teachers’ appreciation of thethe potential of both inside and to

range of environments, of degrees of openness and enclosure.

discomfort that leads to the safeguarding the classroom environment. outside spaces is fundamental to the of children’s experience of

The holistic nature of architectural design, particularly in relation

The analysis suggests that school designisshould these spaces. The design proposal limitedpursue by theperceptual absence

to a programmatically complex school building means that it is

rather physical openness that client allows or forthe the opportunity simultaneousfor superviof the than involvement of an active

not useful or realistic to design with one aim. The ambition of

sion of internalparticipation and external space and theAlthough perception of the weather constructive of children. this study has

the design proposal was not, therefore, to achieve a condition

and maximumthe access to outdoor space to achieve the greatest didactic considered impact of these organisational relationships, the

of maximum openness. Rather I have taken up Aldo Van Eyck’s

potential of the school. input of teachers could greatly influence subsequent design

challenge to architects that it should be our job to keep open

proposals.

what would otherwise be closed (Ligtelijn, 1999). The design proposal for the conversion of an existing collection The pilot thesis has shown that the relationship of inside

of buildings into a primary school aims to achieve the desired

and outside space is largely dependent on the organisation,

diversity of environments, at the scale of the school and of

conception and distribution of activity inside and outside and

the classroom by defining spaces, through new partitions of

in particular the conception of play as a learning activity. It has

various degrees of physical and perceptual openness, and

also been understood that educational practice will adapt to new

that encompass existing spaces with different environmental

environments. A greater understanding and critical analysis of

characteristics, inside and outside of the existing buildings.

different types of play and the physical parameters required to support them could inform a more sensitive design response.

The adopted criteria for environmental diversity is qualitative and non-specific to schools although a justification for such diversity,

Having been shown to reflect current policy the spatial and

to increase the didactic potential of the school, is presented.

environmental criteria of the Reggio Approach have been

Contrary to this, the requirements of the building regulations

considered in relation to the proposals. It has been understood

concerning internal environments are specific and quantitative.

that successful design will maximise the didactic potential whilst

These regulations are an imperative against greater openness

safeguarding comfort and providing the opportunity for the

and environmental diversity, particularly in the restricted urban

teacher and children to adapt the spaces of the school to their

context where it is not possible to accommodate a multitude of

own needs.

spaces with the distinct environments. A possible direction for this research could be to critically challenge these regulations by establishing a spectrum of comfort that takes into account the pattern of occupation and which allows for adaption to a 90

diverse environment. Coupled with analysis of the proposed environments, this could inform an understanding of the operational limits of any proposal.

The design project has prompted me to question how best to represent openness, to describe the relationship of inside and outside space in the production of design information in support of a critical design process, to share ideas and to foster collaboration. My period in practice has already exposed me to different types of information production and will give me cause to question the efficacy of these means of representation.

The period in practice will also allow me to improve my understanding of the impact of contemporary policy and regulations and to develop an appreciation of the relative importance that this aspect of school design in the design and procurement process.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Emanuel, M. (2010, OCTOBER 5th). “To Grow the Children in the Open Air” The Open Air School Movement in the first half of the 20th century. OXFORD.

Armitage, M. (2005). The Influence of School Architecture and Design on the Outdoor Play Experience within the Primary School. Paedogogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education , 41 (4&5), 535-553.

English Heritage. (2010). Research Department Report: Englands Schools 1962-88. LONDON: English Heritage.

Bengtsson, A. (1970). Environmental planning for children’s play. LONDON: Lockwood.

Essa, E. L., Hilton, J. M., & Murray, C. I. (1990). The Relationship Between Weather and Preschoolers’ Behavior. Children’s Environments Quaterly , 7 (3), 32-36.

BOARD OF EDUCATION. (1931). The Hadow Report (1931). LONDON: HM Stationery Office.

Feasey, J. E. (1909). In the open air : a series of out-door leassons in arithmetic, mensuration, geometry, etc. for primary and secondary schools. LONON: PITMAN.

BOARD OF EDUCATION. (1933). The Hadow Report (1933). LONDON: HM Stationery Office. BRE. (n.d.). BREEAM. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from www.breeam.org Brian Billimore, J. B. (1999). The Outdoor Classroom. Department of Education and Employment.

Fisher, P. (2004). Experiencing climate: architecture and environmental diversity. In K. Steemers, & M. A. Steane, Environmental diversity in architecture (pp. 217-232). London: Spon Press.

Brockman, R., Jago, R., & Fox, K. (2011). Children’s active play: selfreported motivators, barriers and facilitators. BMC Public Health 201 . BROUGHTON, H. (1914). THE OPEN AIR SCHOOL. LONDON: PITMAN.

Franklin, G. (2009). INNER-LONDON SCHOOLS 1918-44 A Thematic Study. Research Department Report Series 43-2009 . English Heritage. Gillard, D. (2006). ‘The Hadow Reports: an introduction’. Retrieved from the encyclopaedia of informal education: www.infed.org/schooling/hadow_reports.htm

Burke, C., & Grosvenor, I. (2008). School. London: Reaktion Books. CABE. (2010). Creating excellent primary schools: A guide for clients. London: CABE.

Greater London Authority. (2011). The London Climate Change Adaptation Stratergy. LONDON: Greater London Authority.

Cancer Research UK. (n.d.). Sun Protection Policy Guidelines for Primary School. Retrieved January 2011, from www.cancerresearchuk.org: http://publications.cancerresearchuk.org/downloads/Product/ssps.pdf

Harrison, F. (2011). The impact of rainfall and school break time policies on physical activity in 9-10 year old British children: a repeated measures study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity , 8 (47).

Ceppi, G., & Zini, M. (1998). Children, spaces, relations : metaproject for an environment for young children. (G. C. Zini, Ed.) Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children and Domus Academy.

Hawkes, D. (1981). Yateley Newlands Primary School. Architects’ journal , 173 (25), P1199-1214.

Châtelet, A.-M. (2008). A breath of fresh air : open-air schools in Europe. In N. d.-S. Marta Gutman, Designing modern childhoods (pp. 107-127). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. DAVIES, N. R. (1939). TEN YEARS’ HISTORY OF THE CHELSEA OPEN-AIR NURSERY SCHOOL 1929-1939. LONDON.

Hewes, P. J. (n.d.). Let The Children Play: Nature’s Answer to Early Learnin. Retrieved 01 15, 12, from Canadian Council On Learning: http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/ECLKC/lessons/Originalversion_LessonsinLearning.pdf

Department for Education and Employment. (1999). BUILDING BULLETIN 71 2ND EDITION The Outdoor Classroom. LONDON: HMSO.

Iannacci, A. (2011, 12 17). Teaching Assistant at Primrose Hill Primary School. (J. Purkiss, Interviewer) LONDON.

Department for Education and Skills. (2006). Building Bulletin 99 2nd Edition - Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects. LONDON: TSO.

Jones, P. B. (1995). Hans Scharoun. LONDON: Phaidon. Jones, T. (2012, 12 08). Play Supervisor and Staff Governor Torriano Infants School. School Visit. (J. Purkiss, Interviewer) LONDON.

Department for Education and Skills. (2006). schools for the future: designing school grounds. LONDON: TSO.

Knight, S. (2011). Forest School for All. LONDON: Sage. Kohn, D. (n.d.). Lessons from a Nursery School.

Department for Education and Skills. (2003). Schools for the future: exemplar designs concepts and ideas. NOTTINGHAM.

Kwon, C. W. (2012). Transitional Spaces: The Role of Sheltered SemiOutdoor Spaces as Microclimatic Modifiers for School Buildings in the UK Climate.

Depatment for Education and Employment. (1997). BUILDING BULLETIN 85 - School Grounds: A Guide to Good Practice. LONDON: HMSO.

LEWIS, G. G. (1915). OPEN-AIR EDUCATION AND THE SCHOOL JOURNEY. (T.N.KELYNACK, Ed.) The Year Book of Open-Air Schools and Children’s Sanitoria , pp. 71-74. Ligtelijn, V. (1999). Aldo van Eyck. Bassum: Thoth.

Dudek, M. (2000). Kindergarten architecture : space for the imagination. LONDON: Spon Press.

English Heritage (2011) Schools in Inner-London, 1962-88. (n.d.). Draft chapter from the forthcoming English Heritage Research Department Report England’s Schools 1962-88. Revisions 28.11.2010.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL. (1944). REPLANNING LONDON SCHOOLS. LONDON. Lord Astor, M. H. (1935). A TEN YEAR PLAN FOR CHILDREN. LONDON: R. ANDREW SPOTTISWOODE & CO.

SPTC and Grounds for Learning. (2010). OUTDOOR LEARNING AND PLAY SURVEY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2010.

MacDonald, N. S. (1918). Open-air Schools. TORONTO: McCelland, Goodchild & Stewart.

Steane, M. A., & Steemers, K. (2004). Environmental diversity in architecture. London: Spon Press.

Malone, K. a. (2003). Children’s Environmental Learning and the Use, Design and Management of Schoolgrounds. Children, Youth and Environments , 13 (2).

STILLMAN, C. G. (1943, March 19th). SCHOOL BUILDINGS AFTER THE WAR. THE BUILDER , 259-261.

Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2007). The architecture of the learning environment/A ‘school’ without a ‘soul’? OASE (72), 6-13.

Stillman, C. G., & Castle Cleary, R. (1949). THE MODERN SCHOOL. LONDON: The Architectural Press.

Maynard, T., & Waters, J. (2007). Learning in the outdoor environment: a missed opportunity? Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development , 27 (3), 255-265.

T.N.KELYNACK (Ed.). (1915). The Year Book of Open-Air Schools and Children’s Sanitoria (Vol. 1). LONDON: JOHN BALE, SONS & DANIELSSON LTD.

Merrick, J. (2006, July). AOC Friars School. Architectural Journal , 24-37. Ministry of Education. (1955). Building Bulletin No.1 - New primary schools (Second Edition). LONDON: HMSO.

Thomson, S. (2005). ‘Territorialising’ the Primary School Playground: Deconstructing the Geography of Playtime. Children’s Geographies , 3 (1), 63-78.

Ministry of Education. (1945). Memorandum on the building regulations: being the regulations dated March 24, 1945, prescribing standards for school premises, made under Section 10 of the Education Act 1944. LONDON: HM Stationary Office.

Vanmeirhaeghe, T. (2007). Dissolving the School: From HSS to DNS. OASE (72), 14-23.

NBS. (n.d.). SBS Sustainability. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http:// www.thenbs.com/topics/environment/articles/nbsandbreeam.asp Nursery School Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (1950). Designing the New Nursery Schools. LONDON: University of London Press.

Wright, H. M., & Gardner-Medwin, R. (1938). THE DESIGN OF NURSERY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. LONDON: THE ARCHITECTURAL PRESS.

Wainwright, M. (1997, April 6). A breath of fresh air.

Ofsted. (2008). Learning outside the classroom: How far should you go? London: Ofsted. O’Hare, B. B. (1989). Disruptive Behaviour and Weather Patterns in a West Cumbria Secondary School . British Educational Research Journal , 15 (1), 89-94. Overy, P. (2006). Light, air & openness : modern architecture between the wars. LONDON: Thames & Hudson. Oxford University Press. (1997). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. (D. Thompson, Ed.) LONDON: BCA. Play England. (2008). Design for Play: A guide to creating successful play spaces. LONDON: DfE Publications. Play England. (2011). Supporting school improvement through play: An evaluation of South Gloucestershire’s Outdoor Play and Learning Programme . LONDON: National Children’s Bureau. Potvin, A. (2004). Intermediate Environments. In K. S. Steane, Environmental diversity in architecture (pp. 121-142). London: Spon Press. Robson, G. (2011, 12 04). Head Teacher at Torriano Infants School. (J. Purkiss, Interviewer) LONDON. Saint, A. (1987). Towards a social architecture : the role of school-building in post-war England. LONDON: New Haven.

IMAGE REFERENCES F1.01 Dulwich Nursery School by Samuels and Harding THE DESIGN OF NURSERY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1938 P19

F1.20 Darlington Open-Air School http://www.pbase.com/csdesign Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.07 The Year Book of Open-Air Schools and Children’s Sanitoria. Vol. 1. 1915 P394

F1.21 Uffculme Open Air School THE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914 P25

F1.08 ‘Garden play in a nursery school in Chelsea’ THE DESIGN OF NURSERY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1938 P14

F1.22 Uffculme Open Air School THE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914 P22

F1.09 THE MODERN SCHOOL1949 P15

F1.23 ‘RECORD OF MEASUREMENT OF WEIGHT AND HEIGHT’ THE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914 P79

F1.10 Darmstadt School Project Hans Scharoun Monograph 1995 P139

F1.24 ‘THE WEATHER BUREAU’ THE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914 P79

F1.11 Geschwister Scholl Gesamtschule Lunen http://www.gsgluenen.de/ Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.25 ‘BUILDING A NORMAN CASTLE’ THE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914 P133

F1.12 Geschwister Scholl Gesamtschule Lunen Hans Scharoun Monograph 1995 P147

F1.26 Open Air School Amsterdam by J. Duiker 1930 Aldo Van Eyck Works 1999

F1.13-14 Corona School http://www.etsavega.net/ Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.27 Open Air School Amsterdam by J. Duiker 1930 Stamp by Rein (R.J.) Draijer 1969 http://www.designrelated.com/ Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.15 Corona School http://www.lapl.org/ Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.28 Suresnes Nursery Infant School THE DESIGN OF NURSERY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1938 P37

F1.16 Corona School http://artepedrodacruz.wordpress.com/ Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.29 Suresnes Nursery Infant School THE DESIGN OF NURSERY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1938 P37

F1.17 Prestolee School 1937 http://www.boltonmuseums.org.uk/ Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.30 The Year Book of Open-Air Schools and Children’s Sanitoria. Vol. 1. 1915 P139

F1.18 ‘Advantages of natural surroundings. Open-air teaching in a german school’ THE DESIGN OF NURSERY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1938 P48

F1.31 Open-air class in St James Park http://cbhg.org Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.19 ‘GARDENING’ THE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914 P69

F1.32 James Peacock Infants School 1966-7 Towards a social architecture : the role of school-building in post-war England 1987 P173 94

F1.33 ‘OUTDOOR CLASS SPACES TO BE TREATED INDIVIDUALLY’ Building Bulletin No.1 - New primary schools (Second Edition) 1955 P10

F2.17 Bell Heath Outdoor Education Centre www.educationalvisitsuk.com Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.34 Uffculme Open Air School THE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914 P31

F2.22 Hillcross Primary School Image courtesy of Curl La Tourelle Architects 2011

F1.35 Hunstanton School OASE (Nai), no. 72 2007 P15 F2.00 Authors photograph Brecknock Primary School, Camden, London 2011 F2.01 Cottrel + Vermeulen Architecture Exemplar Primary School Schools for the future: exemplar designs concepts and ideas 2003 P36-38

F2.26 www.breathingbuildings.com Accessed 21.07.2012

F2.02 Childs drawing Children, spaces, relations 1998 P139

F2.39 Lavender Children’s Centre Schools and Kindergartens A Design Manual P69

F2.03 Diana Municipal Preschool Children, spaces, relations 1998 P37

F2.24-25 St Elia School Lessons from a Nursery School Images unatributed

F2.31 AU H&DEM P312 F2.37 Diana Municipal Preschool Children, spaces, relations 1998 P139

F2.04 Outdoor activities Children, spaces, relations 1998 P98 F2.05 Recording the rain Children, spaces, relations 1998 P98 F2.07 Authors photographs Schools in Camden and Islington, London 2011 F2.08 ‘Even large shrubs and quite small trees can create intimate shaded spaces for younger pupils’ Building Bulletin 71 The Outdoor Classroom 1999 P20 F2.13-14 Walters and Cohen Exemplar Primary School Schools for the future: exemplar designs concepts and ideas 2003 P30-32 F2.16 Schools and Kindergartens 2000 P43