MEGHAN SHARP MLA, UC BERKELEY 2011 meghan.sharp@gmail.com 703.201.2564 www.linkedin.com/in/meghansharp
LINCOLN PARK SAN FRANCISCO, CA (SITE PLANNING STUDIO)
CAN A PUBLIC PARK GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE THROUGH FORESTRY TO BE SELF-SUSTAINING— WITHOUT DETRACTING FROM THE USER’S EXPERIENCE?
s lant
$2.6M
tore
ucts
ts du c
+c
rafts
furni t
pro
ure
rod
al co
tio uc
con str
les po
ys
fabr ic p
lp pape rp
pu
rket
u cts rod
lamin ate
er
fibe rt
ad hre
ma
PER YEAR
groc er
farm ers
ts hoo
c ha r
les
ds
pap
culm s
/po
harve st e
ots
cur ed
sh o
whol es a
p le
n
WATER CATCHMENT
BAMBOO PLANTATION & GARDENS
PROGRAM & CIRCULATION
TERRACED LANDFORM
1
8 12 8
1
PARK FEATURES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Turf Recreation Areas Sculpture Garden Demonstration Area Center for Folk Art & Bamboo Craft Underground Parking Fine Arts Museum Amphitheater Viewpoints Skate Park Picnic Area Playground Café Sports Fields Farmers Market/Plaza Wellness Center
2
C
3 7
6
4
9
5 A
10
11
B
13
8
PLANTATION FEATURES A. Curing and Storage B. Maintenance Offices, Equipment & Storage (in retrofitted bunkers) C. Ornamental Bamboo D. Timber Bamboo Water Catchment
11 14
15
WESTWOOD PARK DETROIT, MI (GRADUATE THESIS PROJECT)
HOW COULD SMALL-SCALE, GRASSROOTS URBAN DESIGN INTERVENTIONS HELP REVITALIZE DETROIT’S NEIGHBORHOODS?
ORIGINAL CONDITION
PRESENT CONDITION 1M
ID-
BLO
1M
CK
ID-
LOT
1 M BLOC KL ID1 M BLOC OT KL ID 1 M -BLOC OT IDBLO K LOT CK 1M L IDBLO OT CK LOT
2M
ID-
BLO
2M
CK
ID-
BLO
2M
LOT
S
ID- CK L 2 M BLOC OTS KL ID 2 M -BLOC OTS IDBLO K LOT CK S 2M L IDBLO OTS CK LOT S
3+ 3+ 3+
MID
-BL
OC
MID
KL
-BL
OTS
OC
MID K 3+ -BLO LOTS MID CK 3+ -BLO LOTS MID CK -BL L O OTS 3+ MID CK LO -BL OC TS KL OTS
1C
OR
NER
1C
LOT
OR 1 C NER L OT OR 1 C NER L OT OR 1 C NER L OR OT N 1 C ER LO T OR NER LOT
2C
OR
NER
2C
OR
LOT
S
2 C NER L OTS OR 2 C NER L OT OR 2 C NER L S OR O NER TS 2C LOT OR NER S LOT S
3+ 3+ 3+
CO
RNE
CO
RNE
R LO
TS
CO R LO 3 + RNER TS CO LO 3 + RNER TS CO RN LOTS
PRIORITIZATION OF POTENTIAL TRANSFORMATIONS 1 2 3 OT
DL
E BIN
ILL INF
M CO
IT SPL
OT DL INE OT MB L CO INED MB LOT CO INED T LO MB CO INED B M LOT CO ED BIN M CO
ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF
ED
IN MB
FILL
S
OTS DL INE OTS MB L CO INED S B M LOT CO INED TS LO MB CO INED MB OTS CO DL E IN MB CO CO
IN
ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF
SE
EU
CTIV
U OD
SE EU PR CTIV USE DU PRO CTIVE E US DU PRO CTIVE SE DU E U PRO UCTIV D SE PRO TIVE U C DU O R P
ILL INF
K PAR K PAR D O RK NE A RHO BO OD P K H O NEIG BORH D PAR H OO RK NEIG BORH D PA H HOO K IG NE BOR PAR H OD NEIG RHO O B H NEIG
ARK
ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF K PAR ARK DP O K RHO PAR HBO OOD K NEIG BORH D PAR O RK H O IG NE BORH D PA O H EIG RHO RK OD
RHO
BO
H NEIG
OD
SE EU SE EU IV T C USE DU PRO CTIVE E US DU PRO CTIVE SE DU E U IV RO CTIV
DU
PRO
LOT
ED
OT DL INE OT MB L CO INED MB LOT CO INED T LO MB CO INED B M OT CO DL INE B M CO
K PAR K PAR D O RK NE A RHO BO OD P K H O NEIG BORH D PAR H OO RK NEIG BORH D PA H HOO K IG NE BOR PAR H OD NEIG RHO O B H NEIG
IN
ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF
BIN
RHO
BO IGH
SE
EU
CTIV
DU
SE EU CTIV USE DU PRO CTIVE E US DU PRO CTIVE SE DU E U PRO UCTIV D SE PRO TIVE U C DU PRO PRO
ILL
INF
ILL INF ILL INF FILL
AT
EET
STR
EET STR AT EET CE R FEN AT ST T CE REE FEN AT ST ET CE TRE FEN AT S E C EET FEN STR AT CE FEN FEN
M CO
ARK ET P K CK PO T PAR KE RK C PO T PA E RK CK PO ET PA CK PO ARK ET P K C PO
FILL
LET ARK TEM Y P LET K RAR PO Y PAR ET M E R T RA ARKL P PO T TEM RARY RKLE PA PO TEM RARY KLET R PO A P M Y TE RAR PO TEM
CE
ILL
INF
T
KLE
PAR
ARY
R PO
OD
ET P
P
ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF ILL INF
SE
EU
SE EU CTIV USE DU PRO CTIVE E U US D PRO CTIVE SE DU E U PRO UCTIV D SE PRO TIVE U C DU PRO PRO
RHO
BO IGH
K OC
T KLE P PAR ET TEM L ARY OR PARK T P TEM RARY RKLE PA T PO TEM RARY RKLE PA PO TEM RARY KLET O P AR TEM ARY P R PO TEM
TIV
C DU
LET
ARK
YP
OT IT L SPL OT IT L L P S OT IT L SPL OT IT L SPL T O IT L SPL
LOT
4 AR OR
LOT
DE
ÇA
T FA
EA
E AD FAÇ AT ADE Ç CE FEN AT FA DE ÇA CE FEN AT FA ADE CE AÇ FEN AT F E E C AD FEN FAÇ AT CE FEN C FEN
E AD DE ÇA A F AT ADE Ç CE FEN AT FA DE ÇA CE FEN AT FA ADE E AÇ C N F FE AT E E C AD FEN FAÇ AT CE N E F CE
FEN
AT
FAÇ
EET STR EET STR T A EET CE R FEN AT ST T CE REE FEN AT ST ET E E ENC STR CE
FEN
AT
5
DE
ÇA
T FA
EA
DE ÇA T FA E E A ÇAD C A N F FE AT ADE Ç CE FEN AT FA ADE CE AÇ FEN AT F E E C AD FEN FAÇ AT CE FEN C FEN
E AD E AD Ç A F AT DE CE FAÇA N E F AT ADE Ç CE FEN AT FA ADE CE AÇ FEN AT F E DE C N ÇA FE T FA EA C N FE CE
FEN
AT
FAÇ
NV
IEW
NV
, AU
IEW , AU B N, M URN, M INO INO CK CK
BUR
LYN
LYN DO NS TRE TRE ET ET
DO
PLA
PLA
INV
IEW
NS
INV
IEW , AU B N, M URN, M INO INO CK CK
BUR
AC
PLA
IEW
IA &
, AU
INV
IEW
AY
ENW
GRE
AC IA KEN & KEN DA DA LL LL
DO
APE STRE
LYN DO NS TRE TRE ET ET
GRE
NS
AC
AC
IA &
RE SHA APE ETSC
ETSC
STRE
GRE
NS
T T REE TREE ED S R A SH
D ST
LYN DO NS TRE TRE ET ET
DO
LYN
APE APE ETSC STRE
ETSC
STRE
AC
, AU B N, M URN, M INO INO CK CK
BUR
LYN
PREFERRED INTERVENTION Stabilize vacant house Temporary intervention / priority inямБll Adjacent landowner maintains lot Convert lot to community space Convert lot to other productive use Priority public realm improvements
AY
ENW
GRE
INV
, AU
AC PLA
APE APE ETSC STRE
ETSC
STRE
AY
ENW
AY
ENW
AY
ENW
GRE
AY
ENW
GRE
AC
AC IA KEN & KEN DA DA LL LL
T T TREE D STREE RE A H S
ED S
R SHA
SOUTHEAST GREENWAY SANTA ROSA, CA (URBAN DESIGN STUDIO)
Section A-A’ 90-110’ community gardens or other park facilities
25-50’ privacy berm (3’ h)
10’ 8-15’ access buffer lane
35-40’ private yard (for buffer)
Section B-B’ 20’ TYP private yard
50’ private courtyard
15-25’ buffer
20’ shared street
70-85’ community garden or other park facilities
privacy berm (3’ h)
MUST HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND GREENWAYS BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?
B’
A
A’
B
CRYER BOATWORKS & MUSEUM OAKLAND, CA (ARCH/LAND ARCH STUDIO)
A
B’
C
C’
A’
B
Section A-A’
Section B-B’
Section C-C’
A
B
C
C
D
E
F
PROGRAM A. B. C. D. E. F. G.
Museum Outdoor Workshop Indoor Workshop Library Offices Terrace Café
1ST FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
G
PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS FORKS OF SALMON, CA (CLIENT: SALMON RIVER COMMUNITY LAND TRUST)
Where did teams locate amenities in the town center? Outdoor Places
Community Resources
Retail and Services
Housing
Spatial Themes by Use
What amenities did teams site in the town center? All five five consensus-based maps included: maps included: All
Four of of the thefive fivemaps mapsalso alsoincluded: included: Four
Number ofhomes homesincluded included each map: Number of onon each map: Map A attached
detached
Map B Map C Map D
A
Map E 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
scenario 3: INNOVATE
scenario 2: REVITALIZE
scenario 1: RENOVATE
STREET FURNITURE BUS STOP, BERKELEY, CA (DESIGN-BUILD)
“FORCE/FORM” BLAKE GARDEN, BERKELEY, CA (LAND ART)
GIS ANALYSIS West Pittsburg Pittsburg Pinole
Martinez
Antioch
Oakley
Concord
San Pablo
Pleasant Hill
Richmond El Cerrito
Walnut Creek
Lafayette
Albany
Orinda
Berkeley
Alamo Moraga Town Piedmont
Danville
Oakland
Pittsburg
San Leandro
ACCESS TO ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California LEVEL OF ACCESS BY CENSUS TRACT
Antioch
San Ramon
Alameda
Oakley
Dublin
Castro Valley Ashland
Livermore
San LorenzoCherryland
Pleasanton
Hayward Union City
VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW
Newark
on
Fremont
Based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census, 2002 and 2007 County Business Patterns, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Dublin Livermore
ACCESS TO EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California LEVEL OF ACCESS BY CENSUS TRACT VERY HIGH
San Lorenzo
Pleasanton
Hayward Union City
HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW Based on data from the 2000 U.S. Census, the California Department of Education, and the National Center for Education Statistics.
Newark
Fremont
PROFESSIONAL WRITING IQ Report
Over the last sixty years, school facility investments have shifted toward buildings with larger capacities and school locations that are more distant from the people they serve. This trend is of particular concern to local government managers and staff seeking to support economic growth, improve environmental and public health, ensure socially equitable development, and preserve a high quality of life. The land use and facility planning efforts of local governments and school districts have become increasingly separated in most communities. Their lack of coordination may contribute to the trend toward larger, more distant schools and associated economic, environmental, and social impacts. This guide provides local government managers with an understanding of the connections between school facility planning and local government management issues. It offers strategies for how local governments and schools can bring their respective planning efforts together to take a more communityoriented approach to schools and reach multiple community goals—educational, environmental, economic, social, and fiscal. Eight case studies illustrate how communities across the U.S. have already succeeded in collaborating to create more community-oriented schools.
Local Governments and Schools: A Community-Oriented Approach a movement toward smaller class sizes, by building new, expanded, or updated school facilities. In early 2007, American School and University magazine projected that nearly 40 percent of school districts in the U.S. would complete a construction project by 2009.5 (See sidebar for a discussion of how population changes may impact school enrollment.) Since the 1950s, average school size (measured by enrollment capacity) has grown and school facilities have becoming increasingly distant from the neighborhoods they serve (see Figures 2 and 3). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that from 1930 to 2001, public school enrollment in the U.S. nearly doubled, from 26 to 48 million,6 yet the number of public school buildings decreased 60 percent in the same period, from 247,000 to 93,000.7 These statistics indicate a shift from an average of 105 students per school building to 516 students, across all grades. As average school size has grown, schools have also been built farther from where people actually live. This trend is related not only to the growth in average enrollment size, but also to a variety of policies and practices (discussed later) that encourage large site sizes and discourage renovation or expansion of existing schools. As one of the largest capital investments that most local governments and school districts make, school facilities and related infrastructure have a significant, long-term impact on the communities they serve—not only in terms of the quality of education, but also the
Local Governments and Schools: A Community-Oriented Approach In recent decades, concerned citizens and local government leaders across the country have called for planning and zoning policies designed to make development in their communities more sustainable. These growth management policies—often called “smart growth” policies—emphasize compact, infill, and transit-oriented development, as well as the preservation of open space and community character. They help protect the environment while stimulating economic growth. They take advantage of existing infrastructure and, thus, save tax dollars. And they create more choices Contents for community members in terms of transportation, housing, and socioeconomic diversity. Introduction How School Facility Planning Impacts Communities Factors Affecting School Facility Planning Increasing Coordination between Local Governments and School Districts Community-Oriented Approaches to School Facility Planning Case Studies in Local Government—School District Collaboration Additional Resources Endnotes
Many communities that have implemented smart growth policies have experienced an enhanced quality of life, economic growth, and improved environmental outcomes. Yet, many other communities that seek to implement similar policies face an important challenge: fitting school facilities into the smart growth equation. Over the last sixty years, school facility investments have shifted toward larger buildings and school locations that are more distant from the people they serve. This trend is of particular concern to local government managers and staff seeking to support economic growth, improve environmental and public health, ensure socially equitable development, and preserve a high quality of life. It is also of concern to parents and educators who seek high-quality education for the community’s children. And it concerns local government leaders and school board members charged with providing high-quality services to the community while keeping tax rates low. School Facility Planning: Trends and Impacts As school enrollment continues to rise throughout the country—and many older facilities fall into disrepair—school construction is booming. Public school enrollment in the U.S. reached a record high of 49 million in 2004 (the most recent year for which data was available) and is projected to reach 53 million by 2016 (see Figure 1).2 In a recent national survey, 18 percent of public school principals reported that their schools were over capacity. (Eight percent reported their schools were over capacity by 25 percent or more.3) Meanwhile, existing public school facilities are, on average, more than forty years old and in need of repair and modernization.4 School districts are responding to these and other factors, such as
Definitions: Sustainability and Smart Growth The classic definition of sustainability—”meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”—was first articulated in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development. ICMA considers sustainability to be central to the professional management of local government, with three interdependent elements: environmental stewardship, economic development, and social equity.1 Smart growth is the application of sustainability to development—development that serves the environment, the economy, and the community, all at the same time. Smart growth links development decisions with quality of life so that new developments are community assets rather than liabilities. The following principles guide smart growth development decisions:
Figure 1.
• Mix land uses • Take advantage of compact building design • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices • Create walkable neighborhoods • Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas • Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities • Provide a variety of transportation choices • Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective
Public School Enrollment Rises in U.S., 1930–2015 Total Enrollment (in thousands)
Volume 40/Special Edition 2008
Local Governments and Schools: A CommunityOriented Approach
School enrollment is cyclical, varying by region and over time. While new facilities may be necessary to meet current enrollment levels now, the demand for school facilities may decline in the future. The 2000 Census revealed that only one-third of all households had children, down from more than half in 1950. This figure is expected to decline further to about onequarter by 2025, at which point nearly 30 percent of households will be a single person.9 (Social researchers attribute this demographic shift to longer life expectancies, the aging of the baby boom generation, and younger adults who delay having or do not have children.) It is not clear how immigration will impact these projections; however, should they hold true, an increasingly smaller percentage of homeowners in any given community will have direct ties to local schools. One way that school districts and local governments can help ensure continued support for education and investments in school facilities is to build schools that help anchor a community’s identity and provide services for all residents—not just those with children.
economy, the environment, public health, transportation, social equity, community cohesion, and local finance. Schools that are distant from the populations they serve necessarily result in increased traffic congestion and paved surfaces, and associated air and water quality concerns. Fewer children are able to walk or bicycle to school—an important consideration as childhood obesity rates rise rapidly.8 And, of particular importance to communities striving toward more sustainable development patterns, schools built far from the neighborhoods they serve are a contributing factor in outward migration from existing cities and towns, which in turn contributes to sprawl and can cause disinvestment that hurts local economies. (See “How School Facility Planning Impacts Communities” on page 6.) Getting Back to Community-Oriented Schools
Year
• Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions The Smart Growth Network partner organizations developed these principles in 1996. Visit http://www.smartgrowth.org to learn more.
Population Changes and School Enrollment
*Data for 2010 and 2015 are projections. Source: Digest of Educational Statistics: 2006
The trend toward building schools away from, rather than within, the neighborhoods they serve is not universal. Some school districts, cities, and towns have opted instead to continue or return to the tradition of community-oriented schools. Community-oriented schools are generally more sustainable and better for both students and the community. (See “How School Facility Planning Impacts Communities” on page 6.)
MEGHAN SHARP 703.201.2564 • meghan.sharp@gmail.com • www.linkedin.com/in/meghansharp OBJECTIVE
I seek to practice landscape and urban design as a tool for community development and revitalization. I believe design has the power to build social cohesion and improve economic conditions, as well as renew the health and spirit of the urban environment and its residents.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
DESIGN COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT Design Intern
Berkeley, CA February 2011–June 2011
Rendered plans and perspectives in Photoshop. Researched plant palettes. Revised construction details. HOUSING RIGHTS, INC GIS Analyst
Berkeley, CA May 2010–July 2011
Conducted GIS analysis to identify “neighborhoods of opportunity” in the East San Francisco Bay area. Developed project scope and methodology and identified indicators. Created datasets and conducted analysis. UC BERKELEY CENTER FOR CITIES & SCHOOLS Graduate Student Researcher
Berkeley, CA May–Aug. 2009
Provided research support around the community use of school facilities. Analyzed relevant state policies, conducted extensive literature review, and compiled a database of over 220 potential case studies. INT’L CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Assistant Project Manager, Livable Communities
Washington, DC Jun. 2006–Jul. 2008
Managed the Smart Growth Network (SGN), an EPA-funded project. Researched and wrote articles, case studies and best practice documents targeted at local government leaders. Responded to inquiries from members and media representatives regarding smart growth, sustainable development and community livability. Coordinated educational opportunities on land use issues. Select accomplishments: -
Produced ten robust issues of the Getting Smart! e-newsletter Researched and wrote Local Governments and Schools: A Community-Oriented Approach, a best practices report
-
Produced the Balancing Smart Growth and Water Quality Goals Toolkit Coordinated a 90-minute webcast titled, “Balancing Smart Growth and Water Quality” Coordinated two one-day training sessions titled, “Smart Growth for Local Governments”
NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL Program Manager, Children and Youth Initiatives Program Coordinator, Children and Youth Initiatives
Washington, DC Sept. 2004–Jun. 2006 Jun. 2003–Sept. 2004
Managed national school safety and security campaign. Developed and delivered workshop and training sessions (total of over 40 sessions, 90 training hours and 1,240 participants). Researched and wrote publications, proposals, articles, and website content. Cultivated public and private partnerships. Maintained annual work plan and budget. NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL Program Assistant, Training and Technical Assistance Dept. Administrative Assistant, Training and Technical Assistance Dept.
EDUCATION
MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, University of California, Berkeley -
Washington, DC Apr. 2003–Jun. 2003 Dec. 2002–Apr. 2003 May 2011
Winner, H. Leland Vaughan Award, Department of Landscape Architecture, 2011 President, UC Berkeley Student Chapter of ASLA, 2010-11 Graduate Student Speaker, Department Prizes and Awards Ceremony Urban design project selected for display at 2011 College of Environmental Design “Circus” Co-facilitator of ongoing participatory design project in a rural town in northern California
Graduate thesis, Starting Small: Grassroots Tools for Revitalizing Detroit’s Neighborhoods, explored ways in which smallscale, incremental urban design interventions can catalyze neighborhood revitalization in weak-market cities by building on existing grassroots efforts and nodes of vibrancy and stability. Research was illustrated through application to Westwood Park within the Brightmoor neighborhood in Detroit. B.A., POLITICAL SCIENCE, William Jewell College COMPUTERS
May 2001
Highly proficient: Adobe Creative Suite, AutoCAD, ArcView/GIS • Moderately proficient: Sketchup, Rhino