what you want what you have what you need a Long Range Educational Facilities Plan
06
06
introduction what you want what you have what you need conclusion www.studio27arch.com
i nt roduc tio n In 2013, the public school system in Alexandria, Virginia faced numerous pressures to its facility infrastructure. This Fragment documents the resultant Long Range Educational Facilities Plan, developed by the Design Team of Studio Twenty Seven Architecture, Brailsford & Dunlavey Program Management, and Public Pathways Educational Consultants. In terms of student enrollment and the construction of new school buildings, the Alexandria City Public Schools system (ACPS) peaked in the 1970s. Over the next 35 years, student enrollment plummeted. Infrastructure was left largely dormant while school buildings built at peak enrollment were too big for the number of students they served. In the past decade, however, student enrollment has once again begun to grow. The capacity of ACPS’s school buildings is being tested. What’s more, the outdated facilities were designed for instructional models that are long out of use. ACPS needed a plan to transform its facilities into educational campuses capable of absorbing further enrollment growth and supporting modern ways of teaching and learning. In order to move forward, ACPS needed to quantify these objectives. The school district engaged the Design Team to lead city and district representatives in the development of a Long Range Educational Facilities Plan (LREFP). In the process, the Design Team helped ACPS to update its Educational Specifications, W H AT Y O U WA N T, and assessed the condition and capacity of its current facilities against projected enrollment growth, W H AT Y O U H AV E . The Design Team then developed a Master Plan, W H AT Y O U N E E D , that will guide ACPS as it expands and modernizes its schools.
1
the pr o ce s s The LREFP is a plan to enhance ACPS educational programs and services, accommodate a growing student population, and improve the mechanism for educational facilities planning in Alexandria. There are three steps in the process of creating a LREFP: The first step, W H AT Y O U WA N T, is the development of Educational Specifications (Ed Specs). Ed Specs are both a blueprint and a benchmark for future school renovations and new construction projects. They prescribe how the built environment should support a school’s academic program. Ed Specs are primarily intended for use as a guide by architects and project planners, but the document also serves as a communication and benchmarking tool for all project stakeholders, including students, parents, families, faculty and administrators, civic leaders and community members. The second step, W H AT Y O U H AV E , involves performing Facility Needs Analysis at each school. This step involves testing the capacity of the facility against the established Educational Specifications and projected enrollment growth. The third and final step is the Master Plan, or W H AT Y O U N E E D . The Master Plan is a graphic depiction of recommended renovations, additions, and new construction projects that adapt each school to the district’s expectation for collaborative, technologically-rich, and flexible learning environments to support 21st century learning.
2
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / ACPS SUBCOMMITTEE
LREFP WORK GROUP explores the major issues that will impact public school facilities over the long term and guides staff in the development of a draft long-range educational facilities plan for consideration by the school board and city council SUB COMMITTEES
ENROLLMENT0 FORECASTS
FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS
EDUCATION SPECIFICATIONS
establishing sustainable short and long term enrollment forecast program
understanding current conditions and needs of the existing facilities
planning for our future and matching of facilities to our students and our vision
LONG-RANGE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES PLAN to improve facilities planning, accommodate the growing student population, and enhance educational programs and services
Long Range EDUCATIONAL Facilities Plan WORKFLOW 3
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA 4
th e c i t y Alexandria, Virginia is a city located on the western bank of the Potomac River, a short distance from Washington, DC. In 2014, the City’s population comprised about 150,000 of the six million people living in the greater Washington Metropolitan Area. Alexandria’s urban fabric varies from urban, historic neighborhoods adjacent to the Potomac River to more suburban single and multifamily developments to the west. The Alexandria City Public Schools Division consists of 18 educational campuses. This includes one high school spanning two campuses, three middle schools, and thirteen elementary schools. In 2014, Alexandria City Public Schools served 14,157 students. By 2020, enrollment in city schools is projected to grow by 16 percent. That enrollment is expected to grow another 14 percent by 2030.
5
Medium Income (2010)
Percent Minority (2010)
6
d em o gr ap hic s ACPS disproportionately serves minorities and households of a low socioeconomic status. In the 2010 Census, 61 percent of Alexandrians were white, 22 percent were African American, and 16 percent were Hispanic or Latino of any race. The ACPS student body is 27 percent white, 30 percent African American, and 36 percent Hispanic. Over a quarter of the city’s residents were born in a foreign country. ACPS records show that nearly 20 percent of its students receive English Language Learners services. ACPS students were born in 128 different countries and speak 103 native languages. Although the median income of Alexandria’s residents is among the highest in the nation, socioeconomic diversity is especially apparent in the ACPS community. Approximately 60 percent of ACPS students are eligible for free or reduced lunch programs. In 2010, the districts in Alexandria with the lowest medium income were those residing in older apartment complexes along the 1-395 interstate highway.
7
7.5M Home Sales in Alexandria
5M
$3.50 Gas Prices in DC
$2.50
5% Unempoloyment Rate in Alexandria
2.5%
3K
2K Births 5 Years Before 1K Kindergarten Enrollment 0
Single Family Homes 50%
150
100 ACPS Enrollment per 1,000 residents
25% Single Person Households 0
50 Population of Alexandria 150K
15K ACPS Enrollment 10K
100K
DEMOGRAPHIC OR ECONOMIC TREND EFFECT ON ENROLLMENT 2007–2012 RECESSION
ENROLLMENT TRENDS 1960–2020 8
2020
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
50K 1965
1960
5K
di s tr ic t- w i d e enr o l l m ent tr en d s For the past half-century, population growth in Alexandria has been fueled by young adults moving to the Washington Metropolitan Area for new jobs. These individuals prioritized a convenient commute over the larger home size available in more remote suburbs. Residential development in response to this population demand was prevailingly multifamily and concentrated near transportation corridors and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit stations. In the years after 1960, the portion of single family households in the City increased to over 40 percent (more than 10 points higher than the national rate), and the City’s average household size fell to a percentage much lower than adjacent municipalities. These trends had a significant effect on ACPS school enrollment. When young people that lived in Alexandria for its convenience chose to start families, they tended to move to remote suburbs with more affordable and larger “child-friendly� housing options. After peaking in 1970 at about 160 students per 1,000 residents; enrollment in Alexandria City Public Schools fell by 40 percent over the next 35 years. In 2007, there were just 77 students per 1,000 Alexandria residents. This demographic paradigm began to shift during the economic recession that began in 2007. Before that year, it was relatively easy for families to relocate. The economic realities of the recession appear to have changed that dynamic. The fluctuation of the real estate market, job uncertainty, and rising gas prices have all discouraged families with school-aged children from moving. More children are being born in Alexandria and a higher percentage of these children are enrolling in ACPS kindergarten classes five years later.
9
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of children five years old and younger grew in Alexandria at more than twice the rate of the growth of the overall population. Since 2007, the kindergarten capture rate (the percentage of children born in Alexandria that enter kindergarten five years later) has risen by a third. The average cohort survival rate (the percentage of children that continue from one grade to the next) has risen by 4.5 percent.
SCHOOL AGE POPULATION (2010) 10
11
Average Household Size (2010)
RESIDENTIAL ZONING (2012)
12
Enrollment in Alexandria City Public Schools has risen thirty five percent since 2007. The fall 2014 enrollment of 14,847 students is the District’s largest since 1975. The engine of this enrollment growth is not attributed to new residential development. Rather, nearly all growth in enrollment since 2007 has generated from an increase in the number of students living in existing housing. Though much of this growth resulted from temporary economic conditions, most children now attending Alexandria Public Schools are expected to remain through high school graduation. Even with an improving economy, the urban fabric and location of Alexandria within the larger metropolitan region remains attractive to parents of a younger generation with changing attitudes toward sustainable living. The city birthrate, the kindergarten capture rate, and cohort survival rates indicate that ACPS enrollment will continue to swell, outpacing the citywide growth rate at more than a three to one ratio. As an important precursor to the LREFP, ACPS worked with city officials to project future enrollment for each school. In addition to localized demographic indicators, the forecasters analyzed plans for future development in each school zone. Single-family detached houses, townhomes, and garden apartments (housing types typical of areas zoned for low and medium residential density) currently generate students at a higher rate than mid and high density development. The planned high density, mixed-use redevelopments of garden apartments in the western districts will yield fewer students, while the conversion of commercial and industrial property to mixed-use development in eastern districts will generate more students.
13
By even the most conservative population growth estimates, all of Alexandria’s schools will be enrolled beyond their design capacity by 2020.
ACPS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 14
15
The purpose of e d ucat ional spe cif i cati on s i s to de f ine t h e programmat i c , fu nc t io na l , spatial , and en vi ron men tal requ i re m e nt s of the educational facility, whethe r n ew or remodeled, in written and grap h i c fo r m for review, clarification, and agre e m e n t a s to scope of work and design requi re m e n t s by the archi tec t , en gi n eer, an d ot h e r profe ssio nals worki n g on t h e bu i ld ing desig n. The National School Boards Association
16
w ha t you wan t The first phase of the LREFP process in Alexandria was the development of new Educational Specifications (Ed Specs) for elementary and middle schools. Ed Specs tell the story of an ideal school facility. They are an illustration of how the built environment of a school will support the vision of its leaders. The Ed Specs address each activity, event, technology, and adjacency of the District’s envisioned curriculum. They are a single document that defines expectations amongst project stakeholders. The Design Team started the Ed Spec process by guiding an ACPS committee through a series of brain-storming sessions. Together, we imagined the curriculum of the School of the Future, a model of learning for future generations of students. We challenged educators, administrators, and community members to clarify their expectations for the School of the Future’s built environment. These included expectations for academic and support spaces, facility operation, sustainability, architectural quality, and community integration. We then identified the gaps between these long term goals and current realities.
17
INFORMATION GATHERING COMMITTEE KICK-OFF
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
community feedback
STRATEGIC PLANNING CURRENT GUIDELINES PAST OCCUPANCY
PARAMETERS
ED SPEC WORKFLOW 18
OVERARCHING ISSUES EDUCATIONAL VISION, SECURITY, TRANSPORTATION, EXTERNAL PARTNERS
21ST CENTURY CLASSROOMS INST. TECHNOLOGY
MEDIA CENTER
SPECIAL EDUCATION
FOOD SERVICES
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT MIDPOINT/ DRAFT
FINAL PRESENTATION
INTERNAL PRESENTATION
community feedback
RESOLVE ISSUES
FINAL DOCUMENT AND PRESENTATIONS
community feedback
GENERAL PLANNING CONCEPTS
CAPACITY AND CORE ACADEMICS DISCUSS OPTIONS room layouts and programmatic requirements INTEGRATE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
capacity matrices
19
The Design Team also conducted several weeks of interviews with technical experts, building users, and other stakeholders. The spaces illustrated in the Ed Specs reflect input from specialists in information technology, facility planning, and education pedagogy. We were careful to solicit community and student input at key intervals to ensure the Ed Specs considered diverse perspectives related to facility needs, adjacencies, and prioritizations. For example, a student focus group at George Washington Middle School illuminated the need for a diversity of environments to support alternative teaching methods and styles of learning. The typical Ed Spec document is organized into three major sections: an Introduction, a summation of Overall Planning Concepts, and a detailed listing of Core Academic Space Requirements. The Introduction is a description of the ACPS School of the Future curriculum. It references national trends and standards for educational facilities planning, including discussion of technology in classrooms, the modern media center, the building as a learning tool, and evidence based design for environmental elements like light, air quality, acoustics, and furniture design. The Overall Planning Concepts section includes a narrative summary of each program area and a discussion of conceptual building organization and overall design principles. This section outlines how the district’s philosophical requirements organize the learning environment and provide overarching guidance on critical design considerations such as program adjacencies, technology, health and safety, security, sustainability, environmental design and community use.
20
CURRICULUM OF THE FUTURE
21ST CENTURY LEARNERS Learning environments should be planned and designed in consideration of all types of learners. Digital technology and untraditional learning spaces are critical to educational environments.
LEARNING STUDIO As the focus of education moves away from just the transmitting of information and to developing creative problem solving and communication skills, the classroom setting is morphing into a flexible, multinodal beehive of activity.
STUDENT COMMONS The traditional Media Center is now a multi-media, interactive studio of social collaboration for faculty and students. It supports all kinds of learning: loud and quiet, individual and as a group.
THE BUILDING IS A TOOL
SCHOOL OF THE FUTURE
The school building itself is considered a learning tool and a community asset. There is an identity and pride of place. The architecture considers learning opportunities over the entire campus and fosters internal and external senses of community.
LIGHTING QUALITY
Naturally lit classrooms increase student performance.
AIR QUALITY A healthy classroom environment boosts student attendance.
ACOUSTICS A quiet, distraction-free classroom improves student behavior and concentration. ERGONOMICS Students perform better when furniture can be adjusted for their body size and type.
NATIONAL TRENDS IN EDUCATION 21
“PRIVATE SIDE” = SERVICE ACCESS / ALLEY PARKING
VIEW
BS/ ENG
ADMIN
DROP OFF
ENTRY FAMILY & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
VIEW
ACADEMIC CLUSTER BR E OU AK T
BUILDING CORE K BREA OUT
DINING SUPPORT
K BREA OUT
MEDIA CENTER
AK BRE T OU
ARTS
PLAY!
STUDENT DINING/ MULTIPURPOSE
BR E OU AK T
ACADEMIC CLUSTER
PLAYGROUND EXTERIOR LEARNING SPACE
AK BRE T OU
GYM/ PHYSICAL EDUCATION COMMUNITY REC. SPACE
“PUBLIC SIDE” = STREET PRESENCE, COMMUNITY ACCESS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADJACENCY DIAGRAM 22
MUSIC
L11
L3
F4
L4
F5 F1 F6
F4
F7
L5 F9 F8
L8
L1
SHARED CLASSROOM BATHROOM
L10
F5
CORRIDOR L7
F2
L1
F3
F56
L10
F4 L18
F5
L1
L13
CLASSROOM CLASSROOM
F8
CORRIDOR
CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM
SAMPLE CORE ACADEMIC REQUIRMENT DIAGRAM 23
The Core Academic Space Requirements are based on a 700student prototype for elementary schools and 1200-student prototype for middle schools. The enrollment capacity of a school is determined by class size, the number of core classrooms, and the efficiency of classroom use. The program quantity and square footage allotments for other areas of the building – the number of small group rooms, art and music labs, and support staff offices; the size of core areas such as the media center, dining and food services spaces, physical education facilities, and site amenities are sized based on the school’s core classroom enrollment capacity. For each of the prototypes, the Ed Specs provide a detailed description of the size, quantity, and content of all required spaces. Spatial adjacency diagrams show how spaces should relate to one another both within and across program areas. Typical floor plans illustrate the expectations for size, layout, furniture, and material usage in addition to technology and equipment requirements. Each diagram is accompanied by a description of the space’s square footage and capacity, associated ancillary spaces, spatial organization, program activities, environmental considerations, finishes, and plumbing. Ed Specs are the primary evaluation metric of a successful Long Range Educational Facilities Plan. The document allows ACPS project planners to develop accurate project scopes and budgets. These are important steps in providing district leaders with the information required to make decisions about how to allocate resources.
24
CORRIDOR L21
L1 F3 L18 F44
F44
STORAGE SMALL GROUP RM F3
COMBINED OFFICE / WORKROOM F1.1 L17
L21
F44 L21
L1
TECHNICAL PROCESSING ROOM F3 F45
DEVICE CHARGING ROOM SMALL GROUP RM
SAMPLE CORE ACADEMIC REQUIRMENT DIAGRAM 25
WEST
WILLIAM RAMSAY (PRE-K–5)
SAMUEL W. TUCKER (K–5)
SAMUEL W. TU
JOHN ADAMS (PRE-K–5)
JOHN A (PR
JAMES K. POLK (K–5)
JAMES K
FRANCIS C. HAMMOND (6–8)
FRANCIS C. HAM
DOUGLAS MACARTHUR (K–5)
DOUGLAS MACAR
CHARLES BARRETT (K–5)
CHARLES BA
GEORGE MASON (K–5)
GEORGE M
MATTHEW MAURY (K–5)
MATTHEW M
MOUNT VERNON (K–5)
MOUNT VE
CORA KELLY (K–5)
CORA
GEORGE WASHINGTON (6–8)
26
LYLES CROUCH (K–5)
GEORGE WASHIN
EAST
EXISTING SCHOOLS CURRENT FOOTPRINTS
WILLIAM RA (PR
LYLES CR
w ha t you h ave The second phase of the Alexandria LREFP process was the Facility Needs Analysis. Based on the dedicated square footage required for each student as established in the Ed Specs, the Design Team assessed each school and analyzed their capacity to serve projected enrollment growth. The assessments considered the square footage of core classrooms (by grade), specialty classrooms, shared spaces (including spaces that support Dining and Food Services, media centers, arts spaces, and gymnasiums); and support and administrative spaces (including health suites). The design team also conducted a physical and system conditions assessment of each facility.
27
1
4
2
5
3
6
7 11
1 2 3 4 5 6
3 1
10
8
5 4 6
9
12
2 13
28
William Ramsey Samuel Tucker John Adams James Polk Francis Hammond Douglas MacArthur
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Charles Barrett George Mason Matthew Maury Mount Vernon Cora Kelly George Washington Lyles-Crouch
7
10
8
11
9
12
13
29
The Design Team assigned a score of Very Inadequate to Excellent for each school in each of the following five categories: Site: Assessment of the efficiency and conditions of site access, site circulation, and play areas/fields. Building: Assessment of a building’s organization, its integrated technology and supporting infrastructure, and its accessibility. Instructional and Support Spaces: Assessment of the size, internal organization, furnishings, equipment, lighting, acoustics, and air quality of classrooms (both core and specialty classrooms), support and administrative spaces, and shared spaces. Utilization: Assessment of how efficiently the square footage of the school is used. Security: Assessment of site lighting, intercommunication among spaces, and building surveillance. All but two of Alexandria’s schools were built prior to 1980 and the average age of ACPS facilities is 58. The time and expense to keep these aging facilities in operation adds significantly to the school system’s annual expenditures. In addition, most of the schools have classrooms that are well under the size requirement dictated by the Ed Specs. Very Inadequate utilization scores were given to more than half the schools, indicating that much of the square footage in the existing schools is not allocated in a manner consistent with the demands of a modern curriculum.
30
EAST WEST WILLIAM RAMSAY
SAMUEL W. TUCKER
JOHN ADAMS
JAMES K. POLK
FRANCIS C. HAMMOND
DOUGLAS MACARTHUR
CHARLES BARRETT
GEORGE MASON
MATTHEW MAURY
MOUNT VERNON
CORA KELLY
GEORGE WASHINGTON
LYLES CROUCH
FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS
31
excellent
RECOMMENDATION
new school
addition
reassignment or addition
renovation
reassignment
Overall
Security
Utilization
Instructional & Support Spaces
Building Assessment
School Site
BUILDING CONDITIONS
very inadequate
inadequate
borderline
satisfactory
32
SCHOOL SIZE, LOCATION, AND AGE CHARLES BARRETT
DOUGLAS MACARTHUR
FRANCIS C. HAMMOND
JAMES K. POLK
JOHN ADAMS
SAMUEL W. TUCKER
WILLIAM RAMSAY
WEST
LYLES CROUCH
GEORGE WASHINGTON
CORA KELLY
MOUNT VERNON
MATTHEW MAURY
GEORGE MASON
EAST
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
33
SAMUEL W. TUCKER JOHN ADAMS JAMES K. POLK FRANCIS C. HAMMOND DOUGLAS MACARTHUR CHARLES BARRETT GEORGE MASON MATTHEW MAURY MOUNT VERNON CORA KELLY
EAST
GEORGE WASHINGTON
LYLES CROUCH
BUILDING DEFICIT 34
100,000 sf total space deficit
core classrooms space deficit
total space existing
50,000 sf
20,000 sf
WEST
WILLIAM RAMSAY
MASTER PLAN PROPOSALS 35
ACPS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS 36
37
SAMUEL W. TUCKER (K–5)
OHN ADAMS (PRE-K–5)
JOHN ADAMS (PRE-K–5)
MES K. POLK (K–5)
JAMES K. POLK (K–5)
HAMMOND (6–8)
FRANCIS C. HAMMOND (6–8)
MACARTHUR (K–5)
DOUGLAS MACARTHUR (K–5)
ES BARRETT (K–5)
CHARLES BARRETT (K–5)
RGE MASON (K–5)
GEORGE MASON (K–5)
HEW MAURY (K–5)
MATTHEW MAURY (K–5)
NT VERNON (K–5)
MOUNT VERNON (K–5)
CORA KELLY (K–5)
CORA KELLY (K–5)
ASHINGTON (6–8)
GEORGE WASHINGTON (6–8)
ES CROUCH (K–5) 38
EAST
W. TUCKER (K–5)
EXISTING SCHOOLS MASTER PLAN FOOTPRINTS
LYLES CROUCH (K–5)
WEST EAST
WILLIAM RAMSAY (PRE-K–5)
WEST
AM RAMSAY (PRE-K–5)
w ha t you n e e d The Facility Capacity Analysis revealed that nearly all of the 13 schools included in the LREFP require some level of reconfiguration or modernization. The Design Team determined that ACPS will, in total, be 23 elementary school classrooms and 12 middle school classrooms short by 2020. Without facility expansion, ACPS won’t have room for about 2,000 of the students it expects to be enrolled in five years. Three elementary schools and both middle schools are expected to surpass the maximum desired capacity as established in the Ed Specs, 850 students for elementary schools and 1,200 for middle schools, in the same amount of time. In the Master Plan, the final phase of the LREFP, the Design Team proposed conceptual approaches to resolve the deficiencies identified in the Facility Needs Analysis. The plan suggests a degree of first, second, or long range priority and assigns an estimated cost for each project. The master plans are intended to be diagrammatic only, not prescriptive solutions. The Master Plan represents one possible building solution that responds to enrollment growth and supports curriculum improvement at each of the 13 schools. It is intended as a guide for ACPS leadership to use in the development of the District’s Capital Improvement Program, its annual expenditure for the renovation and expansion of its school facilities. A summary of the Master Plan component for each school is included on the following pages. The summaries consist of a city concept map, a more localized site plan, and an isometric drawing that illustrates the distribution of primary program elements.
39
Context Map .5
John Adams ES
Mi
les
.25 Mile
s
Site Plan
7
4
ng
Sa
4
5
er e. Av
3
2
1 1
6
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
W il l i a m R a m s ay E l e me n ta r y S CH O O L was built in 1957 with additions in 1963, 1977, 1990 and 2001. The school is located in a residential area surrounded mainly by apartment complexes. The school is bordered by an adjoining nature center to its North and recreation center to its South. The school supports the community through Campagna Extended Day Care Programs, nature center programs, Parent Teacher Association reflections programs, and recreation center activities. The nature center and recreation center have independent entrances, affording community access without going through the school. In 2014, Ramsay’s enrollment was 885 students with a capacity for 748. The 2020 enrollment projection indicates the school’s population will increase by 11 percent to 998 students. Classrooms and the library would need to be reoriented and elevators would need to be added to address the classroom deficit and ADA accessibility issues. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
12,068 SF 28,657 SF or 5 percent
Program Isometric
2F
Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
Classrooms
(2nd-5th Grade)
Cafeteria Admin
1F
Auditorium ELA Dining
Media Center Visual Arts + Music
Classrooms (PK-1st Grade)
GF Classrooms Gym
41
Context Map .5
Mi
les
5 .2 es M il
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5
old Har
Ca
lvd.
nB
tatio
on S mer
2
ord Sec
7
St.
3
4 7
6
n
k Ru klic Bac
42
r.
ay D
dD
an din Fer
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
S a m u e l T u ck er E L E ME NTA R Y S CH O O L opened in 2000, making it the city’s first new school in 30 years. The school is situated in the center of the Cameron Station development and serves kindergarten through fifth grade students In 2013, Samuel Tucker had an enrollment of 740 students and a measured capacity of 620 students. By 2020, the school should increase by ten percent to 813 students. Therefore, the existing school capacity will not accommodate the increase of students and the school will be over-utilized. Samuel Tucker is missing approximately 11,117 square feet of core classroom space and deficit in quantity of ten classroom spaces. To serve the projected enrollment, Samuel Tucker ES will need an addition of 7 classrooms and an expansion of the specialty and shared spaces. However, the resulting school would be over the maximum ideal school size for an ACPS School. Due to the limited site area, any addition beyond the existing square footage will exceed the current allowable floor area ratio for the site as well as the property boundaries. Student reassignment is the only way to address projected overcrowding. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
Program Isometric
11,117 SF 14,510 SF or 22 percent
Classrooms (3rd-5th Grade)
Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
1F
Visual Arts + Music
Media Center Classrooms (PK-2nd Grade) GF
Gym Admin Cafeteria
43
.5 M ile s
Context Map
. 25
M il
es
William Ramsay ES
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6
7 6
1 2 8
7
3 5 4
Rayburn Ave
44
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
J ohn A d a m s E L E ME NTA R Y S CH O O L was built in 1967 to serve the community as a middle school. It became an elementary school in 1980. In 2013, John Adams’s enrollment was 874 students with a measured capacity of 858. The enrollment projection indicates the school’s population will increase to 1,074 by 2020. The school is within the limits of the Beauregard Small Area Plan, a plan for the redevelopment of the North Beauregard Street corridor – including 12 million square feet of new construction. Implementation of the Plan as intended may provide opportunities for more cohesive site strategies. To serve the projected enrollment of 1,074 students, John Adams ES will need an addition of 11,622 square feet of total program space. However, the resulting school would be over the maximum ideal school size for an ACPS School. If the school district chooses instead to re-assign students to another school and maintain Adam’s current capacity of 874 students, then the addition would not be necessary. John Adams is missing approximately 8,343 square feet of core classroom space, even though there is a surplus of three classroom. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
8,343 SF 11,622 SF or 14 percent
Classrooms (2nd-5th Grade) Media Center
1F Classrooms (PK-1st Grade)
Gym
Cafeteria
Admin GF
45
Context Map
.5 M
iles
.25
Miles
Francis Hammond MS
Site Plan
Ave
St.
Polk
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
NP eag
ram
5
1
2
3
4
6
1 7
Ric hen
St
.
Ave .
N
Pi
ck et t
bac her
46
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
J a me s P o l k E L E ME NTA R Y S CH O O L , built in 1965, sits on a 13 acre site. The school expansion that occurred in 1994 included a new library, main office, music room and secure main entrance. In February 2010, Polk received a new prefabricated gymnasium and in 2011 four new classrooms using the same pre-fabricated modular approach. In 2014, James Polk had an enrollment of 704 students and a capacity for 660 students. By 2020, the school is projected to increase by 32 percent to 927 students. To serve the projected enrollment of 927 students, Polk ES will need an addition of 8 classrooms and an expansion of the specialty and shared spaces. However, the resulting school would be over the maximum ideal school size for an ACPS School. If the school district chooses instead to re-assign students to another school and maintain Polk’s capacity at or below 850 students, then some or all of the additional instructional classrooms would not be necessary. It is still recommended, however, that the school be reconfigured to the size required by the Ed Specs. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
12,412 SF 25,804 SF or 44 percent
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
Gym Classrooms (1st / 3rd - 5th Grade)
Cafeteria
Media Center
1F
Classrooms (PK - K / 2nd Grade) Admin
GF
Visual Arts + Music
47
Context Map
.5 Mi
les
5 .2
Mile s
James Polk ES
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
in
m
Se ar
5
y
2 *
6 7
t
Pe g
ram
et
N.
6
St.
N St . Pi . ck
1
7 4
.
3
Rd
7
* 1 Potential Site For Elementary School Given the large size of this site, ACPS may also want to give consideration towards the construction of an additional elementary school at this location to help accommodate overenrollment from other schools in the district.
48
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
F r a n ci s H a mm o nd MIDDL E S CH O O L was originally built as a high school in 1956. In 1979, the school became Hammond Junior High School, serving grades seven through nine. Finally, in Fall 1993 the junior high was reorganized into a middle school for grades six through eight. In 2013, Francis C. Hammond had an enrollment of 1,386 students and capacity of 1,480 students. By 2020, enrollment is expected to increase approximately 28 percent to 1,779 students. Building-wide renovation to bring the facility up to 21st century standards and to increase classroom sizes to meet the benchmark is recommended. However based on ACPS’ desire to not have any middle schools larger than 1,200 students, an addition is not proposed. Instead it is recommended the school division consider alternatives to accommodate the student surplus. Hammond is missing approximately 15,946 square feet of core classroom space. The auditorium and superfluous resource rooms artificially inflates the overall square footage of the school, decreasing the overall school deficit. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
15,946 SF 10,242 SF or 8 percent
Academic Classrooms
Program Isometric
Media Center
Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
2F Music / Drama / Auditorium Nurse
Gym
Admin
Cafeteria
1F Academic Classrooms
Gym
GF
49
Context Map
. 25 Mi l
es
.5 M ile s Site Plan (EXISTING)
6
2 7
5 Ja
nn
ey s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
3
Ln
.
Site Plan (Proposed)
6
5
7 Ja
3
nn
50
ey s
Ln
.
Do u g l a s M a cAr t h u r E l e me n ta r y Schoo l was built in 1943 predominantly for the children of the Naval Torpedo Plant workers living in Chicquapin Village. The school has undergone a few renovations with the most recent one occurring in 2008. The school is located at 1101 Janneys Lane, in a residential neighborhood. In 2013, Douglas MacArthur had an enrollment of 704 students and a capacity of 554 students. By 2020, the enrollment is expected to increase by 40 percent to 775 students. Therefore, the school will be over utilized by 140 percent or lacking 38 percent of space needed. Due to the considerable educational learning environment inadequacies as well as size requirement deficiencies at Douglas MacArthur, it is recommended that ACPS consider building a new school at this site that will both alleviate existing building assessment and organization issues while meeting the projected enrollment needs. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
10,126 SF 23,445 SF or 39 percent
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
Classrooms (3rd-5th Grade)
Media Center
2F
Visual Arts + Music Elevator Classrooms (PK-2nd Grade)
Courtyard + Atrium
ELA Dining Nurse
1F
Admin Cafeteria
Multi-Purpose Room (Gym)
51
Context Map
. 25 .5 M ile
M
s ile
s
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WG
lebe
Rd.
7 7
4 1 5
3
2
Marth
6
a Cus
52
tis Dr.
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
Ch a r l e s B a rre t t E l e me n ta r y Schoo l was built in 1949. The 1997 addition of the media center is the only major renovation the school has undergone since its establishment. The building shares a gymnasium and play fields with the adjacent Charles Barrett Recreation Center. In 2013, Charles Barrett’s enrollment was 446 students with a measured capacity of 428. Enrollment projections indicate the school population will increase by 27 percent to a student body of 568 by the year 2020 The school lacks both the number and size of instructional spaces to serve the current and future enrollment. When planning for a school to serve 568 students, Charles Barrett is missing four physical classrooms. Based on the required square foot per student allotment, in capacity driving classrooms, the school is missing an aggregate of 11,500 square feet of space. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
6,393 11,577 SF or 25 percent
Visual Arts
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
2F
Classrooms (4th-5th Grade)
Classrooms (2nd-3rd Grade)
Gym / Rec Center
Auditorium
1F
Admin
Media Center
Music
Cafeteria
GF Classrooms (PK-1st Grade)
ELA Dining
53
Context Map
M
ile
s
.2
5
.5
M il
es
Site Plan George Mason Pl.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7
6 e Cam
5
4
t.
. Ave
54
.
St.
or Tayl
ia Ave
Virgin
Hayes
Rd.
2
Clay S
ills
M ron
1
3 2
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
Geor g e M a s o n E l e me n ta r y Schoo l was built in 1939, since then the building has had two major renovations in 1949 and 1977. Other minor renovations occurred in 1988, 1997 and 2005. In 2014, the school underwent a substantial expansion which included enlarging the cafeteria, adding two courtyards and four new classrooms. The school has a total square footage of 65,291 over the span of two floors. In 2013, George Mason had an enrollment of 512 students and a measured capacity of 368 students. By 2020, the enrollment is expected to increase by 38 percent. Due to the considerable educational learning environment inadequacies as well as size requirement deficiencies at George Mason, it is recommended that ACPS consider demolition of the existing school (but for the original entry, 2014 cafeteria, and classroom wing expansion) and construction of a new school. This would both alleviate existing building assessment and organization issues while meeting the projected enrollment needs. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
14,883 SF 27,664 SF or 48 percent
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support 1F
Classrooms (2nd-5th Grade) Gym
GF Classrooms (PK-1st Grade) Media Center Visual Arts Muisic
Admin Nurse
Cafeteria
55
Context Map
. 25 M iles
.5 Miles
George Washington MS
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ew Ave
W Masonic Vi
7
Rd. sell Rus
Johnston Pl.
6
1
4
3 2
5
.
t St alnu WW
56
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
M at t hew M a u r y E l e me n ta r y Schoo l was originally built as a small school on seven acres of farm land in 1929. Classroom additions occurred in 1941, 1949, and 1961. In 1971 the gymnasium was added and the library underwent a major renovation. In 2005 a major renovation to include a new media center, additional classrooms, teacher work area, new offices, and security upgrades was completed. Today the school has a total square footage of 51,766 square feet on one level. The school lacks both the number and size of instructional spaces to serve its current and future enrollment. When planning for a school to serve 502 students in 2020, Matthew Maury is missing three physical classrooms and 7,523 SF deficit of classroom space. The design team explores the feasibility of a two-story addition to provide the missing classroom space needed to meet the projected utilization. This would allow for a redistribution of the core classroom types to help to address the “inadequate� building organization rating. It would also allow for more effective grade grouping and incorporation of collaborative learning spaces. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
7,523 SF 14,023 SF or 35 percent
Program Isometric
1F
Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
Classrooms (3rd-5th Grade)
GF Gym Media Center
Cafeteria Classrooms (PK-3rd Grade)
Admin
57
Context Map
.5 M iles
il e s .25 M
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7
Co Ave
rnon Ave
nW eal th
Mount Ve
mm o
6
5
2 3 1
3
ve Clyde A
4 6 7 E Uhler Ave
58
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
Mo u n t V er n o n C o mm u ni t y Schoo l was originally constructed in 1906, while the current Mount Vernon Community School structure was built in 1923. Classroom additions occurred in 1941 and 1950 with major building additions in 1967 and 1991. The adjacent Mount Vernon Recreation Center, built in 1997, shares the gym and outdoor fields with the school. The school has a total square footage of 112,730 over the span of three levels. The school is located at 2601 Commonwealth Ave and surrounded by quiet residential streets. In 2013, Mount Vernon had an enrollment of 768 students and a measured capacity of 754 students. By 2020, the enrollment is expected to increase 16 percent to 891 students. When planning for a school to serve 891 students, Mount Vernon is missing one physical classrooms. More importantly, based on the required square foot per student allotment in capacity driving classrooms, the school is missing an aggregate of 7,000 square feet of space. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
7,318 SF 8,338 SF or 12 percent
Classrooms (5th Grade)
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
Visual Arts Music 2F
Classrooms (K - 4th Grade)
Classrooms (PK /1st Grade)
1F Media Center / Auditorium
Cafeteria
Admin Gym GF
59
Context Map .5
Mi les
.25
Mile s
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7
6
4 5 lth A v
e
2
7
W Reed Ave
60
Com
mon
wea
3
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
C or a Ke l ly Schoo l for M at h , Sc ie n ce a nd Techn o lo g y is located in a quiet residential neighborhood in Alexandria. This school is dedicated to preparing its student for the 21st century through science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In 2013, Cora Kelly’s enrollment was 373 students with a measured capacity of 429. The enrollment projection indicates the school’s population will increase 33 percent by year 2020, rising to 497 students. Cora Kelly lacks approximately 3,348 square feet within its core classrooms, however it has a collective surplus of one full classroom. This is because the school possesses the required quantity in classrooms but the classrooms are not sized per the educational specifications. This issue is artificially corrected by the overabundance of space in the specialty and shared rooms, resulting in Cora Kelly having 3,961 square foot more than a school with its capacity requires. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building surplus:
3,348 SF 3,961 SF SF or 10 percent
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
Classrooms (5th Grade)
Classrooms (PK-4th Grade)
Admin
1F
Music Visual Arts
Gym
Cafeteria
Admin
GF
Media Center
61
.5
Context Map
Mi
les
5 .2
Mile s
Matthew Maury ES
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
e Ave. E Glendal
6
1
4
3
5 2
non Ave Mount Ver
7
.
6 E.
Br
ad do
ck R
d.
62
Me tro
7
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
Geor g e Wa s hin g t o n Mid d l e Schoo l was originally built in 1935 and operated as a high school until 1971. In 1971, George Washington and Francis Hammond schools were reorganized to serve ninth and tenth graders while T.C. Williams served eleventh and twelfth grade. George Washington was reorganized again in 1979 to serve seventh, eighth and ninth graders. George Washington finally became a middle school in 1993 In 2013, George Washington had an enrollment of 1,158 students and capacity of 1,438 students. By 2020, enrollment is expected to increase approximately 17 percent to 1,360 students. Therefore, the existing school capacity will accommodate the increase in students and will be utilized at a rate of 95 percent. There is more space in the shared spaces (dining, media, PE) than required by the educational specification. Therefore, the shared spaces artificially correct the deficit because their additional aggregate square footage is calculated in building total size. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building surplus:
8,354 SF 5,246 SF or 5 percent
Academic Classrooms
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
2F Academic Classrooms Auditorium
1F Drama + Music Gym
Academic Classrooms
Multi-Purpose Media Center
Admin
GF Cafeteria
63
.5 M ile s
Context Map
P o t o m a c
. 25
M i
R i v e r
s le
Site Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wilkes St.
6
1 2
Gibbon St.
64
7
t.
5 3
S. Pitt S
S. St. Asa
ph St.
4
Addition Existing Entry Kiss-and-Ride Bus Drop-Off Playing Field Parking
Ly l e s- Cro u ch Tr a d i t i o n a l Ac a d e m y educates children from kindergarten through fifth grade. The school is located at 530 South Saint Asaph Street in a quiet residential neighborhood. In 2013, Lyles-Crouch’s enrollment was 437 students with a measured capacity of 375. By 2020, enrollment is expected to increase seven percent to 467 students. Therefore, based on the school’s existing capacity it will not be able to accommodate the future enrollment size. Lyles-Crouch is missing approximately 4,293 square feet of core classroom space. The school has the adequate number of core classrooms, but they are not the adequate size. Overall, Lyles-Crouch is lacking 9,533 square feet or 25 percent of its desired size based on future enrollment. Primary core classroom deficit: Total building deficit:
4,293 SF 9,533 SF or 25 percent
Program Isometric Classrooms Administration Shared Spaces Support
Classrooms (2nd-5th Grade)
Multi-purpose Room 2F Admin
Classrooms (PK-1st Grade)
Media Center Visual Arts + Music
Cafeteria Support
1F
Music
ELA Dining Nurse
GF
65
66
concl usio n The Alexandria City Public School system is managing a period of significant growth in annual enrollment. The ACPS student body will increase by an estimated 400 to 500 students each year through 2024. This level of growth equates to building an additional 20 classrooms and related support spaces each year. In other words, adding one new full-sized elementary school to the district’s inventory every two to three years. Current mid-range projections show an increase to 17,419 students by 2024, an additional 3,572 students over today’s enrollment. The long-term forecast through 2040, based on an Alexandria city population growth rate of 1 percent per year, shows an estimated peak enrollment level of just over 18,000 in 2031, a total increase of almost 4,300 students over today’s enrollment.
67
While the Facility Capacity Analysis illustrates numerous infrastructural improvements needed in the city’s schools, the immediate crisis is a deficit in the number of classrooms and support spaces needed to meet the district’s growing enrollment. As an immediate response to the enrollment projections, ACPS is increasing class size caps for all grades by two students. Eight more classrooms are being added to two schools and Patrick Henry School is being rebuilt as an expanded PreK-8 school beginning in 2017. The next increments of growth come up against harder limits. Many current classrooms, particularly at older schools, are substantially undersized and many elementary schools are now, or will soon be, using all of their available classroom space. These schools will not only need to be expanded to provide additional classrooms to meet their projected enrollment, but also to accommodate the resizing and redesign of existing undersized classrooms and support spaces. If ACPS enlarges academic spaces to match the square footages as required by the Ed Specs without increasing the school’s size overall, the school’s enrollment capacity will decrease. Some schools currently, or will soon, exceed the maximum desirable enrollment capacity set in the LREFP.
w h at f ir s t? The LREFP is intended to be used for both long range planning and short term decision making as part of the district’s annual Capital Improvement Program. The plan’s recommendations prioritize projects that address existing deficiencies and provide the greatest additional capacity through renovation
68
or reconstruction. The district’s space-strapped elementary schools, particularly those in west and central Alexandria, are at the top of the list. The plan proposes a new elementary school on the west side of the City and recommends the renovation or replacement of Douglas MacArthur Elementary School. Meanwhile, the plan proposes the renovation of east side elementary schools; Cora Kelly and Jefferson-Houston can absorb capacity overages from Mount Vernon and Matthew Maury. The plan also recommends a new middle school to allow George Washington and Francis Hammond Middle Schools to remain at or below the 1,200-student enrollment cap. These suggestions, however, were made without any kind of budget cap. In reality, ACPS has significant financial restraints. Additionally, baseline assumptions for the LREFP included existing attendance zone boundaries. Potential changes to school boundaries or enrollment policies were not included in the assessment of capacity needs at each facility in the LREFP. When compared to the reality of the limited Capital Improvement Program budget, the LREFP recommendations led the ACPS community to refocus on the long and difficult process of redistricting. In editing the boundary zones for each school, ACPS plans to balance enrollment needs across the district. A comprehensive modernization initiative will bring its existing facilities into compliance with the Ed Specs incrementally.
69
The consultant team of Studio Twenty Seven Architecture, Brailsford & Dunlavey Program Management, and Public Pathways Educational Consultants (referred to as the Design Team in this document) brings experience and creativity to the process of facilities planning. The Alexandria City Public School Long Range Facilities Master Plan, as presented here, is a case study of our methodology. It is an approach we have applied either in collaboration or as independent actors to facilities planning projects for universities, municipalities, school systems, and cultural organizations throughout the United States.
S tudio T wenty S even A r chi tec tur e is a studio that specializes in client type, rather than project type. The firm works with clients who seek creative and unique design solutions. S27’s experience with different types of projects and client structures fosters a studio that is facile in its approach to problem solving, creative in managing process, and skilled in the ability to defend its client’s interests. S27’s work in facilities management includes projects for Gallaudet University, the District of Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation, DC Public Schools, the DC Department of Human Services, and KIPP DC Public Charter Schools.
Br a il s for d & Dunl avey is a program management firm that inspires and empowers organizations to maximize the value of investments that advance communities. As a catalyst for building community, the firm maximizes value and mitigates risk for its clients every step of the way. B&D’s unique approach offers comprehensive services ranging from planning through implementation. The firm’s work in facilities management includes projects for nearly 400 higher education institutions; the Prince George’s County (Maryland), Detroit, Los Angeles, and DC Public School systems; the cities of Arlington and Alexandria, VA; Yonkers, NY; and Grand Forks, ND; and Events DC. P UBLIC PAT H WAY S has extensive experience in educational consulting, including Long Range Educational Facilities Plans for more than a dozen jurisdictions as well as writing more than 200 educational specifications for new schools and modernizations. Public Pathways has successfully designed and managed automated systems for capital budgeting and facilities inventories, facilities planning for special, alternative and supplemental programs, and concurrency analysis in school districts in Florida, Maryland, and South Carolina.
List of Im ages : All dr aw i n g s a n d g ra ph i cs a re by Stu d io Twenty Seven Architectu re, 2015 unle ss not e d ot he rw ise. cove r :
E x plo de d A xo n s ; Alex a nd ria C ity Pu blic Schools (AC PS) Long Range Educ at ional Fac ilit ie s Pl a n ( L R E FP ) ; 2 0 1 4
ii–iii :
D et a i l , A lex a n dri a C ity Ma p ; AC PS LREFP; 2014
3:
LR FP Wo rk f low ; AC PS LREFP; 2014
4:
Wa s h i n g t o n M e t ro po l ita n Area Reg iona l Ma p
6:
( t o p) M e di um I n c o m e in Alexa nd ria by C ens u s D is trict in 2010; (bot t om ) Pe rc e nt M inorit y Po p u l at i o n i n A l ex a n dria by Census District in 2010; from “Alexandria 2010 Census Data Pro fi le, ” Fe brua r y 2 0 12, C ity of Alexa nd ria D e p a rtment of P lanning and Zoning, ht t ps:// al ex a n dr i ava . g ov / pl a nning / info/ d ef a u lt.a s p x? id =44032
8:
AC P S E n ro l l m e n t Tre nd s, f rom “ Recent G rowth in Alexa ndria’s S chool Enrollm e nt : T he Ne w N or ma l?” P re s e n t at i on by AC PS & C ity of Alexa nd ria , Ju ne 2014
10–1 1 :
S ch o o l A g e Po pulat i o n in Alexa nd ria in 2010; f rom “ Pop u l at ion Unde r A ge 20 by Ce nsus B l o c k , 2 0 1 0 C e n s us, ” Se p temb er 2011, C ity of Alexa nd ria De part m e nt of P lanning and Z o n i n g, h t t p: / / www. alexa nd riava .g ov / p la nning / info/ d ef ault .aspx?id= 71244
12:
( t o p) Ave ra g e Ho us e hold Size in Alexa nd ria by C ens u s D ist ric t in 2010 from “Alexandria 2 0 10 C e n s us D at a P rof ile;” (b ottom) Res id entia l Z oning in A lexandria in 2012 from “Cit y of A l ex a n d r i a 2 0 1 2 Z o n ing Map,” Januar y 2012, GIS Division of the De partment of Planning an d Z o n i n g, C i t y o f A lexa nd ria
14–1 5 :
AC P S E n ro l l m e n t P rojections ; AC PS LREFP; 2014
18–1 9 :
E d S pe c s Wo rk f l ow; AC PS LREFP; 2014
21:
N at i o n a l Tre n ds i n E d u cation; AC PS LREFP; 2104
22:
E l e me n t a r y S ch o o l B uild ing Ad ja cency D ia g ra m, “ Ed u cational S pe c ific at ions, A lexandria Cit y Pu bl i c S ch o o ls, Jul y 2014, Elementa r y School”
23:
E l e me n t a r y S ch o o l C o re Aca d emic C la s s room a nd Aca d em ic S upport S pac e, Sample Core A c a de mi c Re qui re me nt D ia g ra m, “Educational Specifications, Alexandria City Public Schools, Ju l y 2 0 1 4 , M i ddl e S chool”
25:
M i ddl e S ch o o l M e di a C enter, Sa mp le C ore Aca d emic Req uire m e nt Diag ram , “Educ at ional S p e ci fi c at i o n s, A lex a nd ria C ity Pu blic Schools, Ju ly 2014, M iddle S chool”
26:
AC P S S ch o o l Fo o t pri nts
28–2 9 :
AC P S S ch o o ls ; a ll i ma g es a re f rom Bing Ma p s, © 2015 Mic rosoft , ac c e sse d Oc t obe r 2015
30:
Fac i l i t y N e e ds An a ly s is D ia g ra m
32–3 3 :
AC P S S ch o o l P h a s i n g D ia g ra m
34:
AC P S Bui ldi n g D e fi c it D ia g ra m, AC PS LREFP; 2104
35:
A xo n s, AC P S L R FP ; 2 014
36–3 7 :
Fac i l i t y N e e ds An a ly s is Recommend ation D ia g ra m
38:
AC P S S ch o o l M a s t e r Pla n Footp rints
40–6 5 :
Co n t ex t P l a n s, S i t e P la ns, a nd Exp lod ed Axons, AC PS LRF P ; 2014
Pro ject Tea m: Stu d i o Twen t y S eve n Arch i t e ct u re Brail sfo rd & D un lavey, I n c . Ja m es B r i ns o n , P ro g r a m M a na g er Bet h Pen f i e ld, E ducat i o n a l Fa cility Pla nner Ty S p ech t , P ro j e ct A n a ly s t Pu bl i c Pat h w ay s, I n c. D ea n n a N e w ma n , E duc at i o n a l Fa cility Pla nner
Acknowl ed gemen t s : T h e D e sig n Te a m w i s h es to a ck no wledge the support, cooperation, and ef for t of a ll of t h e ACP S a n d C i t y s t a f f w h o contributed to the planning ef fort, in parti cu la r: A l y s o n A l va re z Andrea Feniak K at h e ri n e C a r r aw ay La u rel Ha mmig S t even C h ozi c k G wenC a rol Holmes S u sa n E ddy Pat Ma nn Mark E i s e n h o ur K a rl Mortiz a n d a l l o f t h e fa c ulty, s t a f f, a n d com m ittee m em bers who joined the ef fort th rou gh ou t: A LE X A ND R I A C I T Y C O U NC IL Wi l l i a m D. E ui l l e, M a yor A l l i so n S i l be r be rg, V ic e M ayor Jo h n T. C h a pm a n Ti m o t hy B. L ova i n Red el l a S. ‘ D e l ’ Pe ppe r Pau l C . S m e dbe rg Ju st i n Wi l s o n
AC PS SC HO O L BOAR D K a ren A. G ra f, Chai r C hris top her J. Lewis, Vice Ch a ir Kelly C . Booz Willia m E. C a mp b ell Ronnie C a mp b ell Patricia Ann Hennig Ste p ha nie A. K a p s is Ju s tin P. Keating Ma rc Willia ms
LRE F P WO R K GRO UP M EMBERS S ch o o l Bo a rd Ro n ni e C a m pbe l l K a re n A. Gr a f Ju st i n P. Ke at i n g Ci t y Co un ci l Wi l l ia m D. E ui l l e, M a yor Ju st i n Wi ls o n , C o u nc ilm a n Ca m p a g n a C e n t e r D r. Ta m my L . M a n n PTA Co un ci l Yvo n n e Fo lk e r t s Ju l i e Ro cch i o M el y n da Wi lcox
C ommu nity Memb er s Herb Berg Ken Billing s ley Ma rk Eis enhou r C hris Ha rtma n Ju dy Norita k e AC PS/ C ity Sta f f D eb ra C ollins, D e p ut y Cit y M anage r, A lexandria D r. Alv in C rawley, Supe rint e nde nt Ta mmy Ig na cio, C hie f of S t af f, ACP S D r. Morton Sher ma n, Supe rint e nde nt (2008- 2013)
PROJE C T S TAFF ACPS E l i j a h Gro s s, D i re c t o r, P la nning, D es ig n & C ons tru ction Lau re l Ha mmi g, Fa ci l i t ies Pla nner/ G IS Sp ecia lis t Cl are n ce S t uk e s, C h i e f O p erations O f f icer A n d re a Fe n i a k , D i re c t o r, Pla nning D es ig n & C ons tru ction (2013- 2014) Wi l l i a m F i n n , D i re ct o r, Fa cilities (2012-2014) D r. Wi l l i a m H o l l ey, D i re ctor, Fa cilities (2014) Ci t y o f Alex a n dri a M a rk J i n k s, C i t y M a n a g er K a rl M o r i t z, D i re c t o r, P la nning a nd Z oning S u san E ddy, D e put y D i rector, Pla nning a nd Z oning Ch r i s B eve r, As s i s t a n t D irector, O f f ice of Ma na g ement & Bu dge t S t eve C h ozi c k , D i v i s i o n C hief, Infor mation Technolog y Servic e s Ro n K a g aw a , D i v i s i o n C hief, Recreation, Pa rk s & C u ltu ra l A c t ivit ie s Jam es Br ya n t , GI S An a ly s t, Infor mation Technolog y Serv ices K at h e ri n e C a r r aw ay, P l anner, Pla nning a nd Z oning N at h a n I mm, P l a n n e r, Pla nning a nd Z oning Pat M a n n , P la n n e r, P la nning a nd Z oning Ryan P r i ce, P la n n e r, P la nning a nd Z oning D a n a We de le s, P l a n n e r, Recreation, Pa rk s & C u ltu ra l Activ iti e s A m b e r W h e e l e r, P l a n n e r, Pla nning a nd Z oning (2012-2014)
STUDIOTWENTYSEVENARCHITECTURE is: John K. Burke, AIA Todd Ray, FAIA Raymond Curtis Andrew Davis Enrique de Solo Katie Floersheimer Ben Hoelscher Osama Iqab Allyson Klinner Claire Lester Niki Livingston Jacob Marzolf Sarah Beth McKay Raul Montalvo Natalie Mutchler Jason Shih, AIA James Spearman, AIA Keisha Wilson Ana Zannoni
Studio Twenty Seven Architecture is a collaborative design and research practice based in Washington DC. For more information and to stay up to date with Studio Twenty Seven, please visit our website at www.studio27arch.com Point of Contact: John K. Burke P: 202-939-0027 E: jburke@studio27arch.com
First published 2015 by STUDIOTWENTYSEVENARCHITECTURE www.studio27arch.com COPYRIGHT: Š 2015 STUDIOTWENTYSEVENARCHITECTURE. All rights reserved. 1600 K Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006 All material is compiled from sources believed to be reliable, but published without responsibility for errors or omissions. We have attempted to contact all available copyright holders, but this has not been possible in all circumstances. We apologize for any omissions and, if noted, will amend in future editions. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying or microfilming, recording or otherwise, without permission from STUDIOTWENTYSEVENARCHITECTURE.
06
Fragment is an episodic publication of Studio Twenty Seven Architecture. Each issue is dedicated to a singular idea, project, or element associated with the Art of Architecture. Studio Twenty Seven is an architectural research and design collaborative located in Washington DC.