Thesis Proposal

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

civ

bo

ic

boundary of interest

education

un

da

ry

n u o

d

b

ary

of

int

ere

t

s e r e

t n i f

o

s s e

in s u

b Masters Of Architecture Thesis Proposal Candidate: Jason G. Boone Advisor: Peter Martin Submitted: 2 May 2012

st

architectural boundaries and the mixed use model: the architecture of secondary learning in the 21st century student: Jason G. Boone home phone: 317.412.3536 work phone: 617.964.1700 email: boonej41175@gmail.com advisor: Peter Martin work phone: 617.308.4440 email: petermartinarchitect@gmail.com thesis 1:

Summer 2012

table of contents

part I - thesis proposal

1

one page summary

3

thesis statement

6

methods of inquiry

9

building systems integration statement

10

site statement

18

program statement

23

case study analysis

43

sketch problem

47

schedule of reviews & requirements

49

qualifications of review panel

63

annotated bibliography

page | i

table of contents

part II - thesis program document

69

overview

70

site description & analysis

88

codes

90

cultural context

91

informational context

93

precedents

99

mission & goals

105

cost evaluation

part III - appendix

page | ii

part I

student: Jason G. Boone home phone: 317.412.3536 work phone: 617.964.1700 email: boonej41175@gmail.com advisor: Peter Martin work phone: 617.308.4440 email: petermartinarchitect@gmail.com Title

Architectural Boundaries And The Mixed Use Model: The Architecture Of Secondary Learning In The 21st Century Thesis Abstract “Why do I need to know this?” It’s the classic question. High school students ask it because nearly all secondary structured learning in the United States occurs in a place and in a manner that is intentionally disconnected from the real world. My research suggests that policy-makers, superintendents, principals, faculty, parents, private citizens, the business community and especially students expect and desire an alternative model – one that addresses this disconnectedness.

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

page | 1

one page summary

one page summary

Method of Inquiry Definition Of Terms Documentation • Photography • Drawings • Direct Observation Analysis • Hand And Digital Drawing • Physical And Digital Modelling • Personal Interviews Metaresearch Terms of Criticism Does the architecture: 1. Align with constructivist learning theory?

2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?

4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

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

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

page | 2

part I

thesis statement

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

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

1

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

page | 3

civ

ic

bo boundary of interest

un

education

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

da

ry

b

ry

da

n ou

of

int

ere

st st

ere

t f in

o

s

es

sin

bu

conceptual thesis diagram

thesis statement

• • • •

Is it really necessary for contemporary society that educational activity be organized in a stable and codified institution?

Must educational activity take place in buildings designed especially for that purpose?

Is there a direct and reciprocal relationship between educational activity and the quality of the buildings in which it goes on?

Must the planning and construction of buildings for educational activity be entrusted to specialists?2

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

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

Facilitated internships Service learning [Taking advantage of] wide open spaces learning spaces Technological collaboration In-residence collaboration [with one another] Elimination of traditional school day - big opening at mid day Link extracurricular with academics Leverage technology tether Make kids teachers3

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

2 3

Volunteer professional expertise provided by community Hosts to interns On-site immersion [in professional practice] Intentional relationship-building [between professional community and educational institution] - Not just dump kids in work place

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

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

page | 4

part I

• •

Symbiotic relationships [with as many non-educational and postsecondary educational entities as possible] Competency-based - developmental stages - multi-age at HS and beyond age eighteen4

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

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

4

Locker, “Visioning Report”, 3.

page | 5

thesis statement

methods of inquiry

definition of terms documentation • photography • drawings • direct observation analysis • hand and digital drawing • physical and digital modelling • personal interviews metaresearch

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

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

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

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

page | 6

part I

TERMS OF CRITICISM Success of any architectural theory, concept, or thesis must be evaluated against a set of criteria or terms of criticism. More often than not, the designer has little input and critics define their own terms of criticism. As the exploration of this thesis serves to advance a designer’s education, the narrative that follows defines the terms of criticism to be used by any potential critics. It is important to note that these terms of criticism are intended for the evaluation of the project, the application of the thesis to a specific program, and not strictly the thesis. A successful project must: 1. Align with constructivist learning theory?

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

2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

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

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?

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

4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

The mixed use model suggests that benefits exist in both

page | 7

thesis statement

terms of criticism

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

5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

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

openness diagram

connectedness diagram

page | 8

part I

building systems

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

architecturally establish that the different user groups are united in a common mission, express the building systems as a teaching tool and an integral part of the building aesthetic, establish the appropriate level of separation and or/ duplication of systems for each user group.

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

Other important issues and constraints affecting building technologies include zoning, codes, accessibility requirements.

The project will be subject to the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) requirements that are in addition to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The project will also be subject to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation 781 (CMR 781) which adopts the 2009 International Building Code (IBC 2009).

fire separation and MEP/FP diagrams

rain water collection diagram

page | 9

site statement

SITE STATEMENT The mixed use program at the heart of the project requires a site that: • • • state context

• •

Is able to host a wide range of use groups Already possess a diverse set of use groups, but still needs core elements Accessible to public transit, vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes Sized to accommodate interior and landscaped environments Currently un- or under-developed

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

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

neighborhood context

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

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

page | 10

No

rth

ern

Av e

nu

e

Se

ap

Bo

ule

va

rd

re

et

d oa rvi ce R

St

Se

ss

Ea st

re

nW

ng

Bo sto

Co

ha rf R

oa d

ort

Su

mm

er

Str

ee

t

p a g e | 11

site statement

St. S p rtt Seaport Square Green

N. Harbor a ar

Fan

St. per Old Sleeper

Figure 1-1

Bridge

Boulevard

Project Site

‘B’

Service

or Seaport World er Trade Center

East

‘M’ Wa y

St. Wharf Rd.

gs illi g SStillin

Boston

St.

St.

orr bo bor rb arbo arbo arb Harbo H Ha Har

S Thomson St.

Active Open Space

Fort Po Point i Channel n el Distr District ct

Boston Tea Party Museum

Congress

Autumn Lane

ns ension e E en St Exte St. illi tillings SStillings

St St.

Children’s e Museum M eum

St rth St. FFarnsworth

Sleeper

SSt.

Children’s C Wharf Park W

Rd.

W Waaayy Way

Seaport

Bridge

Congress

Seaport Hill

Harbor

Evelyn Moakley

St. Extension

Avenue

Courthouse Co C ou ou urt rtth rth tho ho h hou o ous ou usse use us e Square qua qu q u uar ua are re e

Pier Pi

Northern

ge ge dge dg id Brriid ue Brid nu nue A enu n Ave thern th the ortther No N d Nor Old

d Pierr Boulevard P

Moakley M Federal Court House

L5 Corner Square Square

St.

‘A’ St.

P Plaza

on ground level below Summer St. mer S t.

N

Summer St.

Project Area Project Site

WS DEVELOPME

23 Acres Seaport Square 7,280 SF Parcel E open space

development parcel map5

5

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-10.

page | 12

prepared by

part I

site statement

nt erfro Wat

Boston Inner Harbor

ICA

Promenade

Pier Street

Fan Pier Boulevard

Moakley Federal Courthouse

Court House Way

Northern Avenue

ge

Nor thern Avenue Brid

Bridge

Seaport Boulevard

Congress Street Bridge

Congress

Seapor t Lane

World Trade Center Aven

B Street

East Service Road

Harbor Street

Boston Wharf Road

Stillings Street

Thompson Street

Children’s Museum

Autumn Lane Farnswor th Street

Boston Tea Party Ship and Museum

Sleeper Street

ue

Ros e

F

Evelyn Moakley

Congress St

BCEC Expansion

D Street

way Kennedy Green

Cove Street

Street

Vent Building Summer Street Bridge

Residential / Mixed Use

Road n Bypass

Boston Convention and Exhibition Center

South Bosto

Green / Open Space

West Service Road

PREDOMINANT USES:

A Street

Fort Point Channe

l

Summer Street

Retail / Entertainment Commercial / Mixed Use Education / Institution / Cultural Hospitality Parking ar Project Area Parcel E 0

land use diagram6

6

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-48.

page | 13

100'

200'

400'

N

site statement

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

1

2

The existing vernacular in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood, for example, is largely three to five story rectilinear commercial buildings made of red brick. This area was the creation of the Boston Warf Company begun in the late nineteenth century for the storage of goods arriving to Boston by ship. The portion of the Seaport District now called Fan Pier was developed much later and is currently under development with mixed use residential and retail buildings between the Moakley Courthouse and the Institute for Contemporary Art. The images to the left, below and on page sixteen provide some sense of the existing scale and materiality located around the proposed site. The images communicate a uniformity of material and scale in the Fort Point neighborhood that is not reflected in the newest development near One Marina Park Drive. A critical decision moving forward will be whether or not to be sensitive to this local vernacular, to be responsive to the new development, or to attempt to mitigate the transition as the site is a boundary itself.

3

5

6

7

8

4

page | 14

part I

3

12 10 4 7 8

2

13

11

9 5

site statement

6

1

page | 15

site statement

11

12

13

9

10

page | 16

program statement

Residential 8% Civic 14% Business 23%

Education 55%

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

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

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

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

The portion of the program identified in the educational use group serves a public charter high school for four hundred and eighty students and a full time faculty/administration of forty. This portion of the program will anchor the project and expects to occupy a significant percentage of the overall square footage.

Specific spaces in this portion of the program are those related to structured learning, spaces dedicated for student use. Other spaces, which may or may not belong in this portion of the program, include non-structured learning spaces, spaces for adhoc student use, but that may also be used for business or civic entities when not in use by students.

The portion of the program identified in the business use group serves two small scale retail tenants, a twenty person architectural practice, a social media start-up corporation, an artist’s studio, a for-profit fitness business, and a specialized but public library.

No single program element is the business use group expects to occupy a significant percentage of the overall square footage and the group as a whole will occupy approximately 25% of the total programmed area.

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

page | 18

part I

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

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

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

Each use group identified in the program represents users with an interest in learning. The business groups, assembly groups and mercantile groups all have an interest in well educated young people to serve as members of current as well as the future labor pool. The immediate proximity offers them opportunities to recruit, cultivate, and market their industries to talented young people.

Students have the advantage of witnessing first hand where and how content is relevant. Although it is impossible to assemble a set of use groups to satisfy all the interests of students, this program represents a vast improvement over the existing paradigms. The sites proximity to more opportunities only adds to the likelihood of this ability to witness something of interest first hand.

The table and illustration on the following pages communicate the expected major space allocations and spatial relationships.

The intent of the diagram is to express that use groups will not be separated geographically in the building but rather interwoven with one another. Business and civic “anchors� such as the library

page | 19

program statement

program statement

conceptual spatial relationship diagram floor plan

conceptual spatial relationship diagram building section

page | 20

part I

program statement

Total Student Enrollment

Space Name Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Faculty Shared Professional Space Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio Gallery Outdoor Learning Space Retail Suite ‐ 1 Retail Suite ‐ 2 Architectural Firm Suite Business Start‐up Suite Artist Studio Suite Fitness Suite Grocery Store Art, Architecture and Technology Library Performance Venue 1 ‐ Seating Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Performance Venue 2 ‐ Seating Performance Venue 2 ‐ Support 2 BR Residential Unit 3 BR Residential Unit SUBTOTAL

480 User Catagory

IBC Use Group

Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Unassigned Unassigned Business Business Business Business Business Business Business Civic Civic Civic Civic Civic Residential Residential

E E E E E E E E E E E N/A B B B B B B M B A B A B R R

Net to Gross Multiplier Conceptual GSF Target for Project

Quantity 2 240 6 12 24 1 2 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2

Size NSF Each 2,500 64 1,200 600 100 1,000 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,600 (in gross)

Total NSF 5,000 15,360 7,200 7,200 2,400 1,000 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 19,200

800 2,000 8,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 1,800 2,000 1,000 1,500

800 2,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 1,800 2,000 8,000 3,000 131,860

1.50

197,790 200,000

page | 21

program statement

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

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

page | 22

part I

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

case study analysis

BOUNDARY QUALITY MATRIX

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

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

page | 23

case study analysis

Project name: Strawberry Vale School Location: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Program: School building Area: Project area: 3,290 m2 Year: Project year: 1992–1995 Project by: Patkau Architects Project team: Grace Cheung, Michael Cunningham, Michael Kothke, Tim Newton, John Patkau, Patricia Patkau, David Shone, Peter Suter, Allan Teramura, John Wall, Jacqueline Wang

Strawberry Vale Elementary School

Environmental Sciences Thematic School - Vancouver, British Columbia

openness diagram

Consultants: Structural: C.Y. Loh Associates Mechanical: D.W. Thomson Consultants Electrical: Reid Crowther & Partners Specifications: Susan Morris Specifications Quantity Surveyors: BTY Group Acoustics: BKL Consultants Landscape Architecture: Moura Quayle Landscape Architect / Lanarc Consultants Civil: Duncan & Associates Engineering Materials: Environmental Research Group, UBC School of Architecture Signage: Vaitkunas Design Geotechnical: Thurber Engineering Fire Protection: Gage Babcock & Associates Others: General Contractor: JCR Construction Model Team: Tim Newton, John Wall Text: Courtesy of Patkau Architects Images: Courtesy of Patkau Architects Photo Credit: James Dow

2

1

page | 24

part I

case study analysis

boundary legend

3

2 3

1

page | 25

case study analysis

Project name: Strawberry Vale School Location: Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Program: School building Area: Project area: 3,290 m2 Year: Project year: 1992–1995 Project by: Patkau Architects Project team: Grace Cheung, Michael Cunningham, Michael Kothke, Tim Newton, John Patkau, Patricia Patkau, David Shone, Peter Suter, Allan Teramura, John Wall, Jacqueline Wang

Strawberry Vale Elementary School

Environmental Sciences Thematic School - Vancouver, British Columbia

connectedness diagram

Consultants: Structural: C.Y. Loh Associates Mechanical: D.W. Thomson Consultants Electrical: Reid Crowther & Partners Specifications: Susan Morris Specifications Quantity Surveyors: BTY Group Acoustics: BKL Consultants Landscape Architecture: Moura Quayle Landscape Architect / Lanarc Consultants Civil: Duncan & Associates Engineering Materials: Environmental Research Group, UBC School of Architecture Signage: Vaitkunas Design Geotechnical: Thurber Engineering Fire Protection: Gage Babcock & Associates Others: General Contractor: JCR Construction Model Team: Tim Newton, John Wall Text: Courtesy of Patkau Architects Images: Courtesy of Patkau Architects Photo Credit: James Dow

page | 26

part I

case study analysis

boundary legend

4

5

5

4

page | 27

case study analysis

Project name: Putnam High School Location: Putnam, CT Program: 9-12 High School Building Population Size: 400 Students Area: Project area: 90,000 GSF Year: Project year: 1950 Photo Credit: Paul Brown, DRA Architects

Putnam High School

Comprehensive High School - Putnam, CT

openness diagram

1 2

2

1

page | 28

part I

case study analysis

boundary legend

3

4

3

4

page | 29

case study analysis

Project name: Putnam High School Location: Putnam, CT Program: 9-12 High School Building Population Size: 400 Students Area: Project area: 90,000 GSF Year: Project year: 1950 Photo Credit: Paul Brown, DRA Architects

Putnam High School

Comprehensive High School - Putnam, CT

connectedness diagram

5 6

6

7 8

page | 30

5

part I

case study analysis

boundary legend

7 8

page | 31

case study analysis

Project name: HIgh Tech High International Location: San Diego, CA Program: 9-12 High School Building Population Size: 400 Students Area: Project area: 32,000 GSF Year: Project year: 1950 Architect of REcord: Carrier Johnson Photos Courtesy of DesignShare.com

High Tech High international

Comprehensive High School - San Diego, CA

openness diagram - 2nd floor

page | 32

part I

case study analysis

boundary legend

1

2

1 2

page | 33

case study analysis

Project name: HIgh Tech High International Location: San Diego, CA Program: 9-12 High School Building Population Size: 400 Students Area: Project area: 32,000 GSF Year: Project year: 1950 Architect of REcord: Carrier Johnson Photos Courtesy of DesignShare.com

High Tech High international

Comprehensive High School - San Diego, CA

connectedness diagram - 2nd floor

3

3

page | 34

part I

case study analysis

boundary legend

4

4

page | 35

case study analysis

Math Classroom - Exterior Boundary Analysis

Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical High School - Easton, MA

exterior boundary analysis SOLIDITY • Painted CMU • Single Pane Glass in Aluminum Frames • Fin-tube Radiation • Thru-wall Unit Ventilator

key plan

All materials are solid and provide complete enclosure.

CONNECTEDNESS enlarged floor plan

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

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

page | 36

part I

case study analysis

BOUNDARY QUALITIES - Interior Condition

Overall Occupant Experience

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

The boundary from the interior only provides protection from the elements. It does not invite the occupant to pass through or even experience views to the exterior.

The overall effect is to encourage occupant attention on another boundary.

page | 37

case study analysis

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

key plan

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

enlarged floor plan

WELCOMENESS • Clay Masonry • Precast Concrete Sills and Beams Although brick is a warmer material than CMU, the uniformity of the overall facade does not draw occupants to this boundary.

page | 38

part I

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

case study analysis

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

page | 39

case study analysis

Insight Gained from Analysis All of the examples analyzed were strictly educational facilities.

No portion of their facilities were open to the general public.

CR CR

CR CR

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

ART

ENG

ENG

ENG

ENG

putnam high school openness diagram limited openness to corridor, no openness to adajecnt classroms

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

Putnam High School Putnam High School is the classic comprehensive high school.

The school is organized departmentally y content area. There are general classrooms for English, Mathematics, Social Studies, specialty classrooms for Science, Art, Music and Technology Education. Such an organizational pattern requires students to travel from classroom to classroom on a regular schedule. We might expect to see repeated learning spaces as self-contained as possible with as few openings to the corridor as possible. The openness analysis for Putnam High School reveals exactly that.

Standardized classroom spaces have highly selective openings from anonymous corridors. The building itself has highly selective openings to the outside world for control purposes. As a case study, Putnam High School represents the anti-precedent, the model upon which the thesis in this proposal intends to improve.

page | 40

part I

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

case study analysis

teachers

CR

CR STUDIO (circulation) CR

CR

Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical High School Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical High School adopts the traditional vocational school model where real world professions are simulated in the classroom. The 300,000 SF facility not only houses the core academic subjects, but also houses Construction Trades, Electricity, Automotive Technology, Cosmetology, Commercial Art, and a number of other trades.

Although this precedent occupies a position slightly closer to the thesis within this proposal, the exterior boundary conditions do little or nothing to connect this learning to the real world. Even the boundaries of the simulated real-world environments severely restrict access to these spaces by the general public.

CR

CR

high tech high school connectedness diagram - extensive visual connections to interior

Leveraging the Method The intent is to leverage this method of analysis to determine whether or not the project creates architectural boundaries that open learning spaces to and connect them with the real world.

The illustration to the right depicts a concept-level understanding of a portion of the proposed program using this graphic language. concept-level partial plan openness diagram

page | 41

sketch problem

page | 42

part I

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

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

Opening An absence of material within a wall that interrupts the continuity of the wall.

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

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

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

page | 43

sketch problem

sketch problem

wall

three intersecting walls, no openings

three intersecting walls, three nonintersecting openings

three intersecting walls, three intersecting rectilinear openings

three intersecting walls, three intersecting non-rectilinear openings

implied wall

opening

implied opening at corner

implied opening basic architectural constructs

intersection of wall, implied wall and implied openings

page | 44

intersection of wall, implied wall and implied openings - variation

part I

sketch problem

boundary model as diagrammed

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

boundary model reoriented

boundary model reoriented

page | 45

schedule

page | 46

part I

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

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

Terms of Criticism 1. Align with constructivist learning theory?

2. Co-locate structured learning spaces, unstructured learning spaces, business, and civic spaces in a manner that provides new and/or enriched learning opportunities?

3. Increase the value and visibility of learning?

4. Offer non-educational entities an opportunity to participate in the learning process?

5. Articulate the physical boundaries between entities systematically, consistently and to the greatest benefit of learning?

28 August 2012 - Introductory Review There is a sense that each of the five terms of criticism will be discussed in general terms. More attention is expected to be paid to constructivist learning theory and the concept of articulating boundaries for the benefit of learning. This attention is likely to take the form of an informational presentation to make faculty members, panel members, and guests familiar with these fundamental premises.

page | 47

schedule

2012 Schedule of Reviews 28 AUG

Introductory

09 OCT

Preliminary

20 NOV

Schematic

2013 Schedule of Reviews 15 JAN

Design Development

26 FEB

Final Presentation

26 MAR

Document

schedule

09 October 2012 - Preliminary Review Again, the expectation is to review the terms of criticism generally, but the focus of the conversation will rest on conceptual development. As such, the expectation for the terms of criticism is to elaborate on the co-location of program elements and the impact on the value and visibility of learning from a site and spatial relationship perspective.

20 November 2012 - Schematic Design The schematic design review represents a shift in focus from concept-level thinking to systems-level thinking. At this stage, there is an expectation to understand all major building systems and an architectural expression as an integrated design. All five terms of criticism will likely be revisited, but attention expects to be on the physical articulations of boundaries between program elements of different user groups.

15 January 2013 - Design Development The design development review represents the documentation component of the process. Intense focus will be placed on the technical solutions for specific building components including wall and floor assemblies, MEP/FP coordination, and materials selections among others. If successful, all five terms of criticism will be satisfied.

26 February 2013 - Final Presentation The final presentation is the opportunity to communicate the project and the underlying process in its entirety. Selected illustrations, models, and documentation will attempt to convey the thesis and the five terms of criticism to the greatest extent possible.

26 March 2013 - Submission of Thesis Document No panel convened. The thesis document will serve as the permanent record of the process undertaken and the work produced.

page | 48

part I

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

Jason G. Boone Peter Martin - Principal, Area4Design Heidi Black - Former Director of Capital Projects* D. Paul Moore, AIA - Associate, DRA* Michael Malenfant, PE - AECOM* Vacant Paul S. Brown, AIA, LEED AP - Principal, Sole Proprietor Essa Ahmed, LEED AP. - Designer, Prellwitz Chilinski Catherine Miller, M.Arch - Designer, DRA Amy Wheeler - Upper School Director, Beaver Country Day* Melissa Demers, M.Arch - Designer, Insight Architecture*

* Curriculum vitae still required.

page | 49

qualifications

qualifications

page | 50

!

" " " " " " "

" "#

# ! $ " !

Peter  Martin Principal Â

Education       Active  Registrations

School of Architecture, Leicester, UK ---Diploma of Architecture, 1975 Oxford Polytechnic, UK--- Master of Urban Design, 1978 Lay Dharma Leadership Certificate, University of the West, Los Angeles, CA, 2010 NCARB/Architecture, 1986, Massachusetts Architect License, 1986 Massachusetts Construction Supervisor License, 2007

Partial List of Projects Peter Martin Architect/area4design---2009Ă‘Present ÂĽ Llewellyn House, St. George Island, FL ÂĽ Daily Catch Restaurant, Boston, Massachusetts ÂĽ Architectural Services, Fertility Solutions Clinic, Dedham, MA ÂĽ Graphic Design Services for Fertility Solutions, Dedham, MA ÂĽ Construction Observation, Cascade Park, Tallahassee, FL ÂĽ Tallahassee History Fence, Cascade Park, Tallahassee, Florida ÂĽ Construction Administration, Palmer Senior Center, Palmer, MA ÂĽ Rui Martins Residence, Cambridge, MA ÂĽ Design Build, Holloway Residence, Bolton, MA Carr Lynch Sandell, Inc., Principal, 2001 Ă? 2009 ÂĽ Project Urban Designer/Manager for Cascade Park, Tallahassee, FL ÂĽ Project Urban Designer/Architect for development at Eastbourne Lodge, Newport, RI ÂĽ Project Architect for development at Marina Bay, Quincy, MA ÂĽ Project Urban Designer for design guidelines, Cohasset, MA ÂĽ Project Manager, North Point Park, Cambridge, MA ÂĽ Project Architect, Bush Terminal Park Master Plan and park buildings, Brooklyn, NY ÂĽ Project Architect, Mixed-Use Development - Office/Housing, Raleigh, North Carolina; ÂĽ Project Urban Designer/Manager, Sonesta Beach Resort Master Plan, Southampton, Bermuda

¥

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

Carr, Lynch and Sandell, Inc., Senior Associate, 1999 Ð 2001 ¥ Project Architect/Designer, Lookout Farm Master Plan Museum and Exhibition, Natick, MA ¥ Project Urban Designer, Glen Cove Water Front, Glen Cove, NY ¥ Project Architect/Manager, Office Space - @Stake Corporation, Cambridge, MA Independent Consultant, 2000 Ð 2001 ¥ Design/Build and Installation Arecibo Observatory (Cornell University), development of exterior exhibition program, Arecibo, Puerto Rico ¥ Design/Build and Installation of four large interactive sculptures for Parque de los Ninos, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Zalisk Martin Associates, Design Principal of Exhibit Design Company, 1989 Ð 1999 ¥ Gateway Magnet Schools - Exhibit Program, St. Louis, MO ¥ Genetics Gallery and Environment and Ecology Gallery, St. Louis Science Center, St. Louis, MO ¥ Health Gallery, The Science Place, Dallas, TX ¥ American Airlines Museum, Fort Worth, TX ¥ Museum of Science and Technology, Master Plan and Design of whole museum exhibition program, Syracuse, NY ¥ Luci and Desi Museum, Jamestown, NY (museum celebrating work on Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz); ¥ Environment Gallery and Situation Room Interactive Theater, Great Lakes Science Center, Cleveland, OH ¥ Physics Gallery Ð Light and Electricity, Arizona Science Center (indoor/outdoor), Phoenix, AZ ¥ Whitaker Center for Arts and Science, Master Plan and Design of Exhibition Program and Traveling Exhibition "Bodies in Motion," Harrisburg, PA ¥ Arecibo Observatory Visitors' Center, Master Plan and Exhibition Program (indoor/outdoor), Arecibo, Puerto Rico ¥ Jimmy Fund Ð Dana Faber Cancer Institute, various exhibits including Ted Williams Gallery, Boston, MA ¥ Various architectural projects including: Seats, Cambridge, MA, a store for Charrette Corporation; Historic renovation and extensive remodeling of a residence, including furniture design, in Louisburg Square, Boston, MA; and the development of residences new, remodeled, and restored in Concord, MA. ¥ Robin Cook Residence, historic renovation Louisburg Square, Boston, MA ¥ Eberle Residence, Concord, MA

Independent Contractor, 1986 Ð 1989 ¥ Krent Paffett Associates, Consultant, Lead Designer, Museum of Science and Technology, interactive science exhibit, Bridgeport, CT ¥ Lead Designer, Virginia Air and Space Museum Master Plan, Hampton Roads, VA ¥ Interior Designer, restaurants for Roman Delight Pizza (15-20 restaurants); ¥ Construction Supervisor, Bay Bank Harvard, Harvard Square branch, remodeling, Cambridge, MA ¥ Building Contractor, historic renovations of homes in Concord, MA and ¥ Design of various architectural projects in Concord, Lexington, Chelmsford, Wellesley and Cambridge, MA Carr Lynch Associates, 1982 Ð 1986 ¥ Project Construction Administrator, landscape architecture, Lowell State Heritage Park, Lowell, MA ¥ Project Manager, Urban Designer, Reno downtown development, $8,000,000 urban design improvements, Reno, NV ¥ Project Manager, Urban Designer, Tennessee River Park, Master Plan of 20 mile stretch of Tennessee River through design development, and for preliminary three waterfront parks and six miles of linking river edge trails, Chattanooga, TN ¥ Project Construction Administrator, Landscape Architecture, landscape improvements for Franklin Fields public housing project, Boston, MA ¥ Project Architect, Master Plan for pier with Children's Museum Master Plan, St. Petersburg, FL ¥ Project Manager, Planning, Master Plan for Chelsea Soldiers Home, Chelsea, MA ¥ Project Designer/Manager, design guidelines, Hanscom Field Airport, Bedford, MA. The Architects Collaborative, 1980 Ð 1982 ¥ Project Construction Administration, complete interior renovation of four historic residential structures at Monson State Hospital; MA ¥ Project Architect, overseeing team to create design development and construction documents for the following: Long Island Jewish Hospital, $40,000,000 wing, NY ¥ Temple University Hospital, $88,000,000 tower. Philadelphia, PA ¥ Project Manager, 100-room hotel, University of Baghdad, Iraq.

Maguire and Murray Richmond Survey, 1976 Ð 1977 ¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Luxemore House, Kings School, Canterbury, Kent, England. New 50 bed dormitory building with 3 staff apartments sited in historic cathedral precinct, Canterbury, UK ¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Day Boys House, Kings School, Canterbury, Kent, England. New Day Boys House with two cellar level science labs sited in Mint Yard, cathedral precincts Canterbury, UK ¥ Project Architect/Project Manager * Galpins House, Kings School, Canterbury, UK. Conversion of historic refectory building into student dormitory providing additional two levels in existing volume. (* Work published in a special issue of Architectural Review devoted to the King's School Development).

Other Work: ¥ Quiniquennial surveys on behalf of the Church of England for various historic churches in London, UK ¥ Project coordinator for ongoing restoration at Lincoln Cathedral, Lincoln, UK (Maguire and Murray were "Surveyors to the Fabric" for Lincoln Cathedral).

Robin Moores Alnutt, Kingston up on Thames, UK, 1976 Ð 1977 ¥ Project Architect various bank branch renovations. (Civic Trust Award for bank design, set in historic center of Ashford, Kent, UK) ¥ Project Architect for a new six-story office building, Woking, Surrey,UK Stephen George and Partners, Leicester, UK, 1975-1976 ¥ Project Architect of a fifty unit public housing project; Leicester, UK ¥ Project Manager/Project Designer conversion and renovation of three large Victorian houses, providing twelve public housing units, Leicester, UK Stillman and Eastwick-Field - Highbury, London, UK, 1972-1973 ¥ Architectural Assistant, apprenticed on various housing, hospital, and school projects masonry, glazing, and interior cabinet detailing.

Teaching Advanced Studio instructor and thesis advisor, Boston Architectural College.

Adjunct professor at Rhode Island School of Design.

Visiting critic at Rhode Island School of Design, Boston Architectural College, MIT. GED, ABE and ESOL teacher at the Community Learning Center, Cambridge, MA

Essa Ahmed, LEED AP

86 Prospect Street, Somerville, MA 02143 Cell: (617) 515-0420 eMail: essa.ahmed@gmail.com EDUCATION  Jan 07 – May 11  Sep 98 – Jul 03

Master of Architecture / Boston Architectural College, Boston (USA) B.Sc. Architectural Engineering [Public Buildings] / Alexandria University (Egypt)

EMPLOYMENT Project Designer Architectural Designer Architectural Designer Architect Architect Intern Architect Free-lance Free-lance

Prellwitz Chilinski Associates, Cambridge, USA Lozano, Baskin, and Associates, Watertown, USA STV Incorporated, Boston, USA NHEC (Najeeb AlHumaidhi Engineering Consultancy), Kuwait HEADS (Salah Hareedy .PhD), Alexandria, Egypt HEADS (Salah Hareedy .PhD), Alexandria, Egypt Saboor (Salah Hegab .PhD), Cairo, Egypt Memphis, Kuwait/Canada

Dec 10 – Present Jan 10 – Dec 10 Jun 07 – Nov 09 Jan 04 – Dec 06 Oct 2003 Summer 2002

TRAINING/CERTIFICATIONS    

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

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

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

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

Paul S. Brown, AIA 32 Greenwood Ave., Needham, MA 02492 Cell: (781) 640-7413 e m a i l : paulsbrown.aia@gmail.com Registered Professional Architect; Massachusetts and Maine.

LEED Accredited Professional. MCPPO Certified.

EDUCATION 1974 - 1978

1982 - 1985

EMPLOYMENT 2001 – Feb. 2012

Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. School of Architecture.

Degree: Bachelor of Environmental Design (Architecture). 3.25 GPA. One semester of foreign study. Elective course emphasis in English.

Boston College. Graduate School of Management (evening MBA program) 24 credit hours completed. 3.25 GPA.

Project Manager, Drummey Rosane Anderson, Inc., Newton, Massachusetts Public school renovation projects. Responsible for maintaining and improving client relationships. Design, Construction Documents and Construction Administration. Firm leadership in the areas of Green/Sustainable Design.

2000 – 2001

Release Manager. Revit Technology Corporation, Waltham, Massachusetts Software development. Responsible for coordinating the public releases of major and minor updates to the software product. Management of the release-cycle schedule, facilitation of weekly release meetings with senior management and departmental-level managers. The Revit product is an architectural software tool which was purchased by AutoDesk.

1999 – 2000

Project Manager. Ann Beha Associates, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts Historic Preservation Architecture; various projects on the east coast USA.

1986 - 1999

Vice President, The Dean Architectural Alliance, Inc. , Boston, Mass.

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

Promoted to Associate and Project Manager at Dean Packard Rafuse, 1990 – 1995. (firm reorganization). Corporate interiors and National Park Service work.

Promoted to Vice President at the Dean Architectural Alliance, 1995-1999. (2 nd firm reorganization) Primary client: Lucent Technologies.

Team leadership in the realization of built designs. Project management and senior level firm management. Design. Client management on a daily basis.

Direction of firm staff in the design of architectural projects and the production of construction documents. Writing and reviewing construction specifications.

Management of project budgets and schedules. Communications with clients, engineering consultants and contractors. Evaluation of building systems engineering designs. Supervision of computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) technical staff. Design of complex building-envelope waterproofing systems. Design of sensitive interventions in historically valuable properties of National Monument status.

1984 – 1986

Project Manager, King/Warner Associates, Architects. Boston, Mass.

Architectural Project Management on hospital renovation projects.

1982 – 1984

Architectural Project Manager, Facilities Engineering Department University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts

1978 – 1981

Designer / Drafter; entry-level positions.

William W. Stewart Associates, Inc., St. Louis, MO. 1978 - 1979 The Ritchie Organization (TRO), Boston, MA. 1979 - 1981

Resume Paul S. Brown, AIA Page 2 of 2 OTHER 2004

“GREEN DESIGN” (Chapter Co-Author) Chapter on the general principals of ‘green’ design for school construction, within the book: “Secondary School Design and Construction”, published by R.S. Means Corporation.

1981 – 1982

Design Instructor, First Year Architectural Design Studio The Boston Architectural Center, Boston, MA.

2007 – Present

Founder; One Penny Per Mile, Inc. An environmental non-profit organization with the mission to develop renewable energy systems and give them away, free, to other educational non-profit organizations. Financed by penny-per-mile contributions from automobile owners. www.onepennypermile.org . A registered 501 (c) (3) organization.

This is an 'evenings and weekends' avocation.

2005 - 2006

Massachusetts Sustainable Design Roundtable Chair; Incentives Work Group. Steering Committee member.

This roundtable led indirectly to the creation of the MA-CHPS standards for green school design in Massachusetts, and had other indirect beneficial impact.

2004 - 2006

AIA Legislative Affairs Committee Active committee Member.

1993 – 1996

Community Access Monitor, Mass. Office on Disabilities Public assistance with state and federal disability access regulations. Volunteer.

1996

Boston Summer Olympics, Feasibility Study Team leader for development of the four cycling venues for the effort to bring the 2008 summer games to the city of Boston. Pro-Bono volunteer design work.

Computer Skills: Have written some very basic beginner code in C++, and HTML. Very familiar with the Windows Operating System, and proficient with all standard (Microsoft) office and project management programs, including MSWord, MSExcel, PowerPoint, and Outlook. Past user of MSProject.

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

22 HIGHVIEW AVENUE • WEST ROXBURY, MA 02132 PHONE 617.312.1880 • E-MAIL CATHARRIS2002@YAHOO.COM

CATHERINE MILLER OBJECTIVE

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

EDUCATION

Masters of Architecture

2001-2009

Boston Architectural College-Boston, MA

Bachelor Of Fine Arts In Interior Design

New England School of Art and Design at Suffolk University-Boston, MA

1996-1999

WORK EXPERIENCE

Drummey Rosane Anderson Inc.-Newton, MA January 2006-present Intern Architect/Designer  Experience in all phases of projects including: schematic design, construction administration, site and building analysis, project cost and feasibility studies, material selection and specifications, programming, master planning, model making; both traditional and computer generated, and rendering perspectives, floor plans, and site plans.  Experience working on town-wide facility evaluation and master plan reports.  Provide a supporting role at community meetings and design workshops.  Represent DRA at several job briefings.

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

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

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

January 1999-April 2001

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

page | 62

part I

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

Brubaker like Woolner is an educational expert and architect.

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

2. De Carlo, Giancarlo. “Why/How to Build School Buildings.”

Harvard Educational Review: Architecture and Education, Vol. 39 no. 4 (1969): 12-35.

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

3. Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010.

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

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

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

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

page | 63

bibliography

bibliography

University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

In his chapter, Monocultures and Multiculturalism, Fisher makes the connection between ecology and the built environment. Fisher argues that diverse built environments benefit in the same way that diverse ecosystems benefit.

His argument will serves as a motivating metaphor for the reimagining of architectural boundaries related to school.

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

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

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

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

The idea will be to link these observed trends to the need for an architectural expression of these ideas.

8. Harr, Sharon, ed. Schools for Cities: Urban Strategies.

Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2000.

This collection of essays communicate the outcomes of a conference titled “ Schools as Catalysts for Community Development held in Chicago in 2000. The collection will serve in three capacities. First the collection will serve as background to the evolution of the American High Schools.

Next, it will establish several of the common obstacles impeding the execution of schools as a collection of diverse use groups with intentionally crafted architectural boundaries.

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

page | 64

part I

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

10. Kahler, Gert. “The School in the City or the School as City.”

Metropolis: Education 3 (2009): 85-95.

Kahler’s essay derives from a European perspective where educational history is much older than in the United States.

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

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

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

page | 65

bibliography

bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

14. Pizziconi, Andrea Christie. “New Urban Strategies”.

UrbanLand, March, 2006.

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

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

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

page | 66

part I

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

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

Woolner is a Research Associate at the Center for Learning and Teaching at New Castle University in the United Kingdom.

If this were a court room trial, she would be called as an expert witness on educational design features and their impact on learning. Her personal research as well as the research cited in her book establishes a design evolution of High Schools, provides evidence that design principles impact learning, and communicates evidence that architectural relationships between the high school and the community can be mutually beneficial.

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

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

page | 67

bibliography

bibliography

page | 68

part II

Thesis Program Table of Contents

overview

site description & analysis

codes

cultural context

informational context

precedents

mission & goals

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

page | 69

overview

site description

SITE DESCRIPTION The mixed use program at the heart of the project requires a site that: • • • state context

• •

Is able to host a wide range of use groups Already possess a diverse set of use groups, but still needs core elements Accessible to public transit, vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes Sized to accommodate interior and landscaped environments Currently un- or under-developed

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

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

neighborhood context

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

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

page | 70

part II

page | 71

site description

part II

site description natural and constructed

St. Harbor Way

Bridge

St. East

Harbor Seaport Hill Congress St. Hotel

L5 Corner Square

Project Area Urban Spaces

St.

Cultural within Project Site

‘A’ St.

Congress

‘M’ Way

St.

Active Open Space

Wharf Rd.

St. Stillings

Fort Point Channel District

Sleeper

St.

Autumn Lane

Boston

St.

Thomson St.

Farnsworth St.

Congress

Stillings St. Extension

‘B’

‘K’ Open Corner

Boston Tea Party Museum

N. Harbor

Urban Open Spaces

Boulevard

Children’s Wharf Park

Children’s Museum

Figure 1-7

Rd.

Seaport

Seaport Square Green

Service

Bridge

St. Extension

St.

Courthouse Square

Old Sleeper

Evelyn Moakley

Avenue

Pier

Northern

ue Bridge Old Northern Aven

Pier Boulevard

Moakley Federal Court House

Fan

The aerial photo in the margin to the right and the figure below communicate the extend of natural areas in the neighborhood.

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

N Stair

P Plaza

Primary Connection Secondary Connection Local Connection

Summer St.

Pedestrian Access within Building

M el

20 200’

400’

WS DEVELOPMENT

t.

rS

e ch

00 0 50’ 100’ 0’

prepared by:

7

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-12.

page | 73

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

Figure 4.2-1 Shadow During June 21 at 9:00 am

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

8

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

page | 74

part II

site description shadow studies

Figure 4.2-2 Shadow During June 21 at 12:00 noon

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

9

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-30.

page | 75

site description shadow studies

Figure 4.2-3 Shadow During June 21 at 3:00 pm

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

8

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-31.

page | 76

part II

site description shadow studies

Figure 4.2-4 Shadow During June 21 at 6:00 pm

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

9

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-32.

page | 77

site description shadow studies

Figure 4.2-23 Shadow During December 21 at 9:00 am

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

8

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-59.

page | 78

part II

site description shadow studies

Figure 4.2-24 Shadow During December 21 at 12:00 noon

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

9

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-60.

page | 79

site description shadow studies

Figure 4.2-25 Shadow During December 21 at 3:00 pm

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by:

10

Epsilon Associates. “Environmental Protection Component, Chapter 4”. 4-59.

page | 80

part II

site description parking & transportation

Parking Lot

Parking Gar

Parking Lot Parking Garage

1/4

-m

SE

N

AP

OR

TB

LV D

1/4

AP

OR

TB

LV D

diu

Q

.

SU

MM

MM

ER

H ST .

NG

ST .

O

SS I ST .

P

2

F

G 4

T

K

3 F

L

M

G

6

R

4

T

J

7

U S

K

3

5 6

R

AS

T.

M

L

Existing Off-Street Parking in the Study Area

J

RE

2

Figure 2.1-10

RE

E

SS I ST .

s

E

1

CO

NG

diu

O

A

D

s

P

1

CO

H

A

D

SU

ER

C

B

C

-m B ile Ra

N

Ra

Q

.

SE

ile

S

M

T.

W

SU

M

ER

ST .

WS

M

ST .

N

ST .

ER

DEVELOPMENT

V

D

11

V

M

D

5 AS

W

SU

ST .

7

U

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 2-44.

page | 81

prepared by: Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

site description

Fan

St.

Stillings

Boston Tea Party Museum

P

Boston

Congres

P

S

‘B’

‘M’ Wa y

Seaport World Trade Center

DEVELOPMENT

P prepared by: P Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

S

St.

P S

‘A’ St.

Congress

WS

N

Active Open Space

Fort Point Channel District

St.

Autumn Lane

Stillings St. Extension

Service

P S

Rd.

Harbor Way P Plaza

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 2-46. s St. Bridge

page | 82

N. Harbor

Boulevard

S S

Project Area

12

P

East

Summer St. Children’s Museum

‘B’

St.

Rd. Service

Harbor

P S

Seaport

S

St.

Parking

P

Seaport Square Green

Harbor

P

P

P S

St.

Service/Loading

P

Seaport World Trade Center

Wharf Rd.

Sleeper

‘A’ St.

S

Avenue

Courthouse Square

S

‘M’ Wa y

Pier St. Extension

St.

Children’s Wharf Park St.

St.

Congress

Wharf Rd.

Old Sleeper

Bridge

P

Boston

Evelyn Moakley

Bridge

St.

Northern

Active Open Space

S P

Autumn Lane

East

P

ue Bridge Old Northern Aven

Fort Point Channel District

St. Congress

St.

Stillings St. Extension Federal Court House

Stillings

Boston Tea Party Museum

Harbor Way

rwalk

P S Moakley

Thomson St.

Farnsworth St.

St. Sleeper Children’s Museum

P

Boulevard

S

Children’s Wharf Park

Site Plan Showing Proposed Parking and Service/Loading Entrances

S

Pier Boulevard

Seaport

Figure 2.1-11

Fan

Bridge

Harbo

Evelyn Moakley

Seaport Square Green

Thomson St.

Old Sleeper

St.

S P

P S

N. Harbor

Avenue

St.

Northern Courthouse Square

Farnsworth St.

P

ue Bridge Old Northern Aven

Pier Boulevard

Moakley Federal Court House

Pier St. Extension

Harbo

rwalk

parking & transportation

Summer St.

P Plaza

N

part II

site description parking & transportation

Lots vs. Garage Parking by Phase 7,000

in Lots

Figure 2.1-12

In Garages

Summary of Lots vs. Garage

by Seaport Square Phase

Total Parking Spaces Available

6,000

5,000

4,000 987

2,994

4,794

6,020

6,198

376

188

4

5

3,000

2,000

3,647

6,375

3,155

1,000

1,942 998

0 Existing Lots

1

2

3 Phase

6

WS

DEVELOPMENT

prepared by: Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

13

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 2-44.

page | 83

site description parking & transportation

10 min.

5 min.

walking distance diagram

page | 84

part II

nt erfro Wat Boston Inner Harbor

ICA

Promenade

Pier Street

Fan Pier Boulevard

Moakley Federal Courthouse

Court House Way

way Kennedy Green

Cove Street

F

Bridge

Seaport Boulevard

Congress

Seaport Lane

World Trade Center Avenu

B Street

East Service Road

Harbor Street

Congress St

BCEC Expansion

D Street

Congress Street Bridge

Boston Wharf Road

Stillings Street

Thompson Street

Children’s Museum

Autumn Lane Farnsworth Street

Boston Tea Party Ship and Museum

Sleeper Street

e

Ros e

Existing & Proposed Land Use of Surroundings

Northern Avenue

e

Northern Avenue Bridg

Evelyn Moakley

Figure 1-45 Figure 1-21

Street

Vent Building

Residential / Mixed Use

Road n Bypass

Boston Convention and Exhibition Center

South Bosto

Green / Open Space

West Service Road

PREDOMINANT USES:

Summer Street

A Street

Fort Point Channel

Summer Street Bridge

Retail / Entertainment Commercial / Mixed Use Education / Institution / Cultural Hospitality Parking ar Project Area Parcel E 0

100'

200'

400'

N

WS DEVELOPMENT

prepared by: 14

Boston Global Investors, Morgan Stanley, W/S Development Associates LLC. “Final Environmental Impact Report.

EEA#142255 Seaport Square.” 2010, 1-48.

page | 85

1

2

3

4

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

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

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

page | 86

part II

site description site observations

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

Image five depicts a cobble stone street from when the Boston Wharf Company occupied the entire neighborhood. There is a smoothness and a durable quality that may have some value.

Image six depicts the scale of the streets in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood. The combination of the relatively narrow street, the modesty of the five story structures on either side, the wide of the sidewalk and the rhythm of the tree canopy that is pleasant.

Image seven depicts the interior of a former shipping warehouse now converted to a local art gallery. Much like the street scape outside, the combination of the wide open space, the heavy timber construction, exposed mechanical system, and volume of the space is a warm and pleasant one. These features may be worth pursuing as architectural language as the project develops over the next year.

Summary The proposed site is currently a fenced off asphalt parking lot, a parcel amongst 23 acres of contiguous parking. The key attractiveness of this parcel is that it possess the characteristics and qualities identified as necessary for the success of the project, namely that zoning permits a mixed use facility and the both the neighborhood and the project can benefit from one another. Other key considerations include the easy access to pedestrian and vehicular circulation as well as public transportation networks.

One of the terms of criticism is an assessment of the projects ability to improve the value and visibility of learning. These qualities offer the opportunity to be successful in this regard.

5

6

7

page | 87

codes

CODES The image to the right depicts the Boston Redevelopment Zoning Map for the Fort Point Harbor Front. The proposed parcel is subject to restrictions and guidelines for the Planned Development Area (PDA) including certain height restrictions.

The parcel dimensions, set-back restrictions, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements are provided in Part II, page 72. Zoning codes permit an FAR of 4.25 and a maximum building height of 255’. Although those restrictions equate to an allowable area of approximately 224,000 GSF and approximately 17 stories, the proposed project falls well short of these restrictions at 200,000 GSF and five stories.

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

CMR 781 - Massachusetts Building Code, 8th Edition MAAB - Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, most recent IECC - International Energy Conservation Code, most recent The Massachusetts Building Code, 8th addition adopts the 2009 International Building Code and references several other trade specific regulations and compliance tests. Of all the regulations, special attention will be given to the MAAB. The program has at its heart an educational facility. As such, every component of the facility must be accessible.

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

page | 88

part II

page | 89

codes

cultural context

CULTURAL CONTEXT As mentioned previously in this document, the nearest existing neighbor with any historical or cultural context in the Fort Point Channel District. Many of the site context photos shown in Part 1, pages 14 through 16 identify the architectural character present.

In addition to these photos on this page were identified in a study report to designate the Fort Point Channel neighborhood as a landmark district.15

Other important buildings in the neighborhood include the Moakley Federal Courthouse, the Boston Children’s Museum, Railway Express Building, 343 the newly completed One Marina Park Drive, and the Institute for AlterationsCongress have been made to this building over time.

Early in its existence, a Street, photographed c. 1900 (fifth fourth floor was added and in 1936 its interior structure was rebuilt to convert it to Contemporary Art. Still others of note that are slightly farther away floor added later). use as a parking garage. Probably at that time, the central section of the roof parapet was rebuilt in the form of a pediment to give the building what must have include the Boston Convention Center and the World Trade Center cornices.

Theanbuildings a ofhandsome and group. An been considered updated look.form Parapets a similar design wereharmonious commonly seen during that period on commercial buildings andstood on both large parking architecturally similar building once on the vacant lot on this block.

Complex.

Each of these existing buildings have the possibility to garages and private home garages. In a recent conversion of the building to office use, the present fifth floor was added. Set back from the main façade with a broad influence the character and design choices of this project. overhanging roof and multi-paned glazing across its width, this section reads Fig. 3. Romanesque Revival, American Railway Express Building, 343 Fig. 3. Romanesque Revival, Congress Street, photographed c. 1900 (fifth floorAmerican added later).

visually as a separate element. Alterations to the ground floor include the opening of a new centralized main entrance and making floor length windows out of most other openings. Projections added at the ground floor as part of the adaptive reuse have hidden some architectural detail, but appear to be easily removable and not permanently damaging.

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

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

21

Fig. 4. Example of tripartite façade, with a

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

Photo of 312-320 Summer Street, c. 1905.

Tripartite façades continued to be widely used in the district during the early 20th century for Stylized Classical style buildings. However, buildings in this freer interpretation of the Classical style adhered to the tripartite form less strictly, just as their Classically-inspired details came to be more streamlined and interpreted in imaginative new ways.

Also associated with the Classical Revival style in the FPCLD was the use of light-colored brick, because light-colored walls resembled stone. An interest in light-colored exterior materials took hold in American building in the late 1880s.

16 Fort Channel At about this time, New York architects began to order bricks thatPoint were not Study red. Committee. “Designation of the Fort Point Channel Landmark District.” 2009.

A building considered seminal in the fashion for non-red brick was the Telephone and Telegraph Building on Cortlandt Street in New York City (Cyrus Eidlitz, 1886-1887). The novel color of the brick in this building was so influential that a g e material | 9 0 for other designers simply specified “Telephone” brick whenpordering their buildings. The Goelet Building, previously mentioned as an exemplary tripartite elevation, was also notable for its tan brick walls and windows framed with brick and terra cotta in contrasting light colors. When the architects of this

part II

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

She suggests, rather that the owner should be a development organization with the educational entity being the primary tenant.16 Pizziconi has researched several examples such as Millenium High School in New York City, which occupies several floors of a high rise office building in the heart of Manhattan. So, to is the expectation for this project. The owner will likely be a large real estate development corporation. Their business model identifies the 480- student charter school as the primary long term tenant and several smaller office based, commercial, or retail tenants.

As an added value for the developer, the proposal is to include a small number of residential units presumably for faculty, staff and their families.

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

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

16

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

page | 91

information context

information context

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

What will student be doing in the year 2020?

• • • • • • • • •

Facilitated internships Service learning [Taking advantage of] wide open spaces learning spaces Technological collaboration In-residence collaboration [with one another] Elimination of traditional school day - big opening at mid day Link extracurricular with academics Leverage technology tether Make kids teachers

How will the community be involved in the learning process in the year 2020?

• • • • • •

16

Volunteer professional expertise provided by community Hosts to interns On-site immersion [in professional practice] Intentional relationship-building [between professional community and educational institution] - Not just dump kids in work place Symbiotic relationships [with as many non-educational and postsecondary educational entities as possible] Competency-based - developmental stages - multi-age at HS and beyond age eighteen16

Locker. “Visioning”. January 2012, 3.

page | 92

part II

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

page | 93

precedents

precedents

page | 94

part II

page | 95

precedents

precedents

page | 96

part II

page | 97

precedents

precedents

page | 98

part II

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

Issues Image Image or imageability refers to users’ perceptions of the project and its spaces. The primary issues related to image will stem from desires for both a collective image and individual images for the various user groups. Considerations for image may include: a. Massing b. Siting c. Materiality d. Penetrations Separation Appropriate separation between use groups is critical to the project. For each group to benefit use groups can be neither completely separated from one another nor completely open to one another. Careful consideration and articulation of the boundaries between entities will be necessary. In fact, it is this articulation that is at the heart of the thesis.

Circulation Circulation refers to the connective tissue that binds occupied spaces together and is closely tied to way-finding. Considerations for circulation may include: a. Connectivity b. Social Interaction/Isolation c. Wayfinding d. Usability as non-programmed space Spatial Relationships Spatial Relationships refers to the geometric arrangement of

page | 99

Mission & Goals

mission & goals

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

Spatial relationship considerations may include: a. Programme of Space Needs b. Building Organization c. Security d. Wayfinding e. Acoustics f. Opportunities for visual connections Flexibility/Adaptability Flexibility/ Adaptability refers to the project’s ability to reinvent or reorganize itself over time to serve the needs of its users. Levels of flexibility/adaptability may manifest themselves as a need to rearrange furnishings, relocate functions, or even accommodate alternative uses. Considerations for flexibility/adaptability include: a. Structure b. Fixtures c. Furnishings d. Equipment Building Technology Building technology refers to the constructed components of the project. These components include architectural systems such as the exterior envelope, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection systems. Building technology is an issue with every project, but bringing different use groups together in a single facility raises the issue of separate or integrated systems among other concerns.

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

page | 100

part II

Performance Requirement #1 The scale and materiality of the building shall be sensitive to, but not referential of the surrounding architectural context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

page | 101

mission & goals

mission & goals

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

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

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

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

Performance Requirement #1 Project solutions shall locate spatial elements in such a way to satisfy two basic criteria: (a) Permit the experience of an entity’s core activity (b) Satisfy the functional requirements of each entity Performance Requirement #2 Project solutions shall seek out creative adjacencies in an effort to maximize educational benefit.

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

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

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

page | 102

part II

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

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

Performance Requirement #3 The architecture must establish spatial elements of varying floor areas and volumes in an effort to provide a range of possibilities.

This range better permits relocation of programmatic elements without re-partitioning when needs change.

COST EVALUATION At this point in the project’s development, it is not yet appropriate to identify a building footprint or a building massing as these items require additional site analysis. What is known at this time is that an expectation exists to occupy only about half the buildable area on the ground floor (approximately 28,000 GSF) and leaving the remaining half to be developed as public open space. Likewise, there is an expectation that the building mass be no more than five stories and approximately 75 feet high at its highest point.

How these expectations will be massed is yet to be determined.

At present, there are no known vertical set-backs required by the building code and no known horizontal set-backs required from the property line.

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

page | 103

cost evaluation

cost evaluation

Total Student Enrollment

Space Name Commons Student Workstation Project Room Multi‐purpose Seminar Room Faculty Shared Professional Space Administrative Suite Specialty Lab ‐ Type 1 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 2 Specialty Lab ‐ Type 3 Specailty Lab ‐ Type 4 Studio Gallery Outdoor Learning Space Retail Suite ‐ 1 Retail Suite ‐ 2 Architectural Firm Suite Business Start‐up Suite Artist Studio Suite Fitness Suite Grocery Store Art, Architecture and Technology Library Performance Venue 1 ‐ Seating Performance Venue 1 ‐ Support Performance Venue 2 ‐ Seating Performance Venue 2 ‐ Support 2 BR Residential Unit 3 BR Residential Unit SUBTOTAL

480 User Catagory

IBC Use Group

Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Education Unassigned Unassigned Business Business Business Business Business Business Business Civic Civic Civic Civic Civic Residential Residential

E E E E E E E E E E E

Net to Gross Multiplier Conceptual GSF Target for Project

N/A B B B B B B M B A B A B R R

Quantity 2 240 6 12 24 1 2 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2

Size NSF Each 2,500 64 1,200 600 100 1,000 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,600 (in gross)

Total NSF 5,000 15,360 7,200 7,200 2,400 1,000 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 19,200

800 2,000 8,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 1,800 2,000 1,000 1,500

800 2,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 6,000 6,000 1,800 2,000 8,000 3,000 131,860

1.50

197,790 200,000

page | 104

part II

At present, the cost estimate work sheet is not yet completed.

The expectation is to complete this work as an addendum to this document in the upcoming weeks. The following two pages are place holders for this content.

page | 105

cost evaluation

page | 106

part III APPENDIX Visioning Study Excerpts Randolph High School Interview Notes

Ch 5.2 Notes Workshop Two

AGENDA

th

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

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

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

1. What will students at Randolph Public Schools be doing later in the 21st Century? What is “a day in the life of a student?” How might facilities be impacted?

2. What will faculty/staff at Randolph Public Schools be doing later in the 21st Century? What is “a day in the life of a teacher?” How might facilities be impacted?

Notes Workshop Two

3. What will the nature of school be like later in the 21st Century? How might facilities be impacted?

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

Or, how will the school be involved in the community? How might facilities be impacted?

5. How can buildings be flexible to respond to changing needs? How might facilities be impacted?

Visioning

District-Wide Facility Master Plan

Frank Locker Educational Planning

Randolph Public Schools Randolph, MA

1 February 2012

Ch 5.2 Notes Workshop Two

Elementary Schools

School starts earlier - age three Higher expectations for achievement and teacher performance Flexible learning groups by interest and ability - not grade level Still some time to run around What about autistic kids? o Design to meet individual needs as well as active learning Carrying fewer books Yes, still core subjects: reading, Math, etc, o With more integration of arts, etc o Art as a core subject How will core subjects be learned? o More experimental o Less rote memorization Facilitating vs lecturing Integrating families into learning Multi-tasking Challenging students to think more, be more analytical and creative Collaborative arrangements↓ Facilities: o More open o More adaptive o More flexible Year-round learning Greener schools = tools for learning More user-friendly and welcoming Kids want to come Factory→Google ☺ Mentoring Pre-birth programs for parents + birth to pre-school o Partnering with hospitals 24/7 / 365 Fitness Center!

Learning experiences outside of the building Adventure learning trips Internships Service learning Visioning

District-Wide Facility Master Plan

Frank Locker Educational Planning

Community Health Clinics incorporated into the schools o Taunton is doing it now o Dental Clinics Learning transcends the building The building expands into the community The building serves other needs in the community “Why can’t parents learn along with their kids?”

Can the schools make money for the community? → economic development o Use facilities to launch businesses o Entrepreneurial incubators o Students create their own internships o Community growth o Culinary arts Catering, functions Learning by doing Come for dinner Learning center for teachers too

Middle School

“Messy” - not as cleanly structured Technology everywhere with each student outside school “Smart desks” Portfolio/performance-based assessment o Project-based o Collaborative teams But not daily Not same schedule Year-round school Learning outside of school Teachers as facilitators o Work on personal interactions Focus on critical thinking skills o How to deal with change st 21 C skills relevant to future jobs o Business partnerships Teachers all digital savvy “Middle” grades may be blurred o (Higher expectations) (Gone?)

Randolph Public Schools Randolph, MA

2 February 2012

Ch 5.2 Notes Workshop Two More like HS today Earlier learning More diverse student body in Randolph o Needs to be exploited o Culturally knowledgeable More attention on individuals, especially at lower levels Open door Community Center o Fifteen hours/day o User-friendly o Secure Members from community supplement teachers Parent/volunteer spaces Video to record school activities o Use social networking (web blog, etc) to share with parents/other community Differentiated teaching/learning styles and spaces More, different spaces open to one another Social services support system built into administration o

High School 1. What will students be doing?

Facilitated internships Service learning Wide open spaces - learning spaces (5) Technological collaboration In-residence collaboration *Elimination of traditional school day - big opening at mid day o Consequence: What happens to extracurricular?

Find solutions Link extracurricular with academics *Leverage tech tether o Culture now o Make kids teachers Facilities supportive of this - relocate corridor 2. What will faculty/staff be doing?

Higher collaboration expectations for faculty and staff o Tech as vehicle?

More interdisciplinary connections Visioning

District-Wide Facility Master Plan

Frank Locker Educational Planning

Cyber Café as collaboration space

Hypothetical teaching position advertisement: RPS is seeking: *Multi-disciplinary facilitators o Team work skills o Collaboration skills o Manage shared groups of common students o Operate within layered (School Within School) structure o Experience with PBL “ability to make” o Tech savvy o Able to organize content around student interest overarching themes o Ability to link Randolph methodology with state and other standards o Experience linking content to practice o Take advantage of town resources; physical and human resources o Deploy rigor and relevance o Knowledgeable (experts) in content and cognition (learning) o Ability to differentiate learning 4. How will community be involved?

Homefront - existing program o Community intervention* One to one (three) guidance at student home Offer services Early Head Start - expand Volunteer professional expertise provided by community Hosts of interns o On-site immersion *Intentional relationship-building o Not just dump kids in work place Symbiotic relationships Competency-based - developmental stages - multi-age at HS and beyond age eighteen

Randolph Public Schools Randolph, MA

3 February 2012

Ch 5.2 Notes Workshop Two

PLACES FOR STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING 2 + 3

Proposed Plan:

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

High School Current plan:

Visioning

District-Wide Facility Master Plan

Frank Locker Educational Planning

Randolph Public Schools Randolph, MA

4 February 2012