The Essence of a School

THE ESSENCE OF A SCHOOLDEFINING THE RELATIONSHIP OF INSIDE AND OUTSIDE SPACE IN PRIMARY SCHOOL DESIGN

JAMES PURKISSDARWIN COLLEGE30.07.2012ESSAY 410394 WORDS

An essay submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MPhil examination inEnvironmental Design in Architecture (Option B)

WRITTEN ANALYSIS

Taking the position of the architect the author identifies and

seeks to resolve contrary imperatives for and against greater

physical, perceptual and organisational openness in primary

school design. A method of collage is employed in the writing

and the production and presentation of images. The adopted

two-column format juxtaposes written analysis and a description

of the design response.

ABSTRACT

DESIGN RESPONSE

This design research aims to achieve a relationship of inside

and outside space in the design of a new primary school on a

restricted site in Camden, London that satisfies an established

demand of contemporary policy and educational practice for

greater outdoor activity and the shared use of inside and outside

space.

2F0.00

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

PROPOSED SITE

TERMS

HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL CONTEXT

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

IMAGE REFERENCES

6-17

9

10

17

19-43

44-89

90-91

92-93

94-95

F0.01

Contemporary educational policy and practice promote

increased use of outside space in primary schools in response

to a variety of imperatives (Thomson 2005). The conception

of the outdoors as a learning environment is propagated by

progressive educational theory that defines play as a learning

activity (Billimore 1999). The argument for increased outdoor

experience is supported by research showing the early-years

of a child’s development to be the period of the most ‘rapid

growth of physical and mental characteristics’ when children

are of ‘greatest susceptibility to environmental influence’ and

‘deprivation has the most disastrous effect’ (Bengtsson 1970).

However, children’s opportunities for outside play and their

level of physical activity are decreasing (Brockman, Jago and

Fox 2011). This trend is attributed to a cultural resistance to

discomfort and intolerance of ‘bad’ weather (Maynard and

Waters 2007) and social factors; safety fears, security concerns

and the loss of outside play spaces (SPTC and Grounds

for Learning 2010). Schools’ outside spaces have therefore

been identified as increasingly important sites for ‘children’s

environmental learning’ and physical activity (Malone and

Tranter 2003).

Reflecting architectural research that identifies the influence

of transitional spaces and boundary conditions on internal and

external activity and the shared occupation of inside and outside

space (Fisher 2004) (Kwon 2012), contemporary policy and

practice also promote improved connection to outside space to

facilitate greater outdoor activity (CABE 2010).

The relationship of inside and outside space in a school is

subject to other contrary, cultural, political, and environmental

imperatives for and against greater openness. Furthermore,

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

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

the physical environment (Maynard and Waters 2007).

INTRODUCTION

6

The challenge faced by the architect, that which this research

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

perceptual openness that negotiates these imperatives. For the

pilot thesis the intellectual problem is approached through the

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

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

space is limited the relationship of inside and outside space is

critical to maximise their mutual didactic potential.

F1.00

The extensive range of existing academic research this thesis

intersects reflects the diversity of influences on the relationship

of inside and outside space that have been identified. This field

of research is most often concerned with proving the influence

of the physical environment on academic attainment and

defining the ideal environmental parameters for learning and

comfort, attention and behaviour. The pursuit of homogenous

environments that satisfy these parameters would deny the

subjectivity of comfort and perception (Steane and Steemers

2004). The thesis identifies that the safeguarding of comfort, as

defined by these parameters, is an important imperative against

greater openness and the use of outside space in schools. The

thesis asserts that the adoption of a ‘dynamic environmental

strategy’, as proposed by Mary Ann Steane and Koen

Steeemers in Environmental Diversity in Architecture, could

overcome this imperative by providing ‘adaptive opportunities

that allow occupants to engage with the building and take

control of their environment’ (Steane and Steemers, 2004). By

orchestrating ‘sequences or transitions’ between interior and

exterior to create ‘stimulating settings’ where ‘occupants remain

aware of the passage of time and weather’, this strategy could

also satisfy the didactic potential of the school.

Steane and Steemers relay Dean Hawkes’ challenge for the

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

user requirements towards the understanding of environmental

diversity, both spatial and temporal, and of the complex

perceptual and operational relationships which occur in the total

environment’ (Steane and Steemers, 2004).”

METHODOLOGY

The thesis proposes that the requirement of a school for

environmental diversity is related both to comfort and to didactic

potential. The thesis responds to Hawkes’ challenge by seeking

to understand the ‘perceptual and operational relationships

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

determine the experience of openness. The design proposal for

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

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

contemporary conceptions of openness in school design and

the imperatives for and against greater openness. The scheme

for the conversion of existing buildings into a school aims to

achieve a diversity of dynamic environments at the scale of the

classroom and of the school.

9F1.01

The site for the design proposal has been earmarked for the

relocation of an existing infants school by the London Borough

of Camden. The site area of 3181m2 is below the recommended

site area according to Building Bulletin 99 for a 240 place

primary school but within the minimum guideline for a primary

school on a constrained site. The site is bordered by a railway

viaduct to the south, a proposed 10 story development to the

west, a four lane road to the north and the back gardens of

semi-detached houses to the east. There are currently a variety

of residential and warehouse buildings.

PROPOSED SITE

10F1.02

[Academic use only]

12

There are 42 state-funded primary schools in Camden ranging

from approximately 100 to 450 pupils. The above map shows

the location of sports facilities and other community facilities

in relation to the primary schools, shared use compensates

somewhat for a lack of available space and facilities within

individual schools (F1.04).

F1.03

F1.04

[Academic use only]

13

PRIMROSE HILLPRIMARY SCHOOL

TORRIANO INFANTS SCHOOL

The thesis refers to a case study of the influence of the weather

on playground access and activity in two Camden primary

schools as indicated on the above map. The proposed site is

indicated by a red dot (F1.05).

F1.05

[Academic use only]

14

[Academic use only]

15

The site area of 29 of the 42 state funded primary schools in

Camden is below the minimum guideline area for schools on a

restricted site and with access to off-site playing fields (Building

Bulletin 99). The minimum area is calculated according to the

number of pupils. The playground area per pupil varies from 1.7

m2 to 21.6 m2 (F1.06); the average playground area per pupil in

Camden is 9.3 m2. The area per pupil at Primrose is 9.7 m2 and

11.6 m2 at Torriano Infants School. Assuming that all of the roofs

will be terraced the proposed playground area per pupil is 13m2.

F1.06

The research concerns the relationship of inside and outside

space. Source texts use different designations of space; indoor

and outdoor and interior and exterior are the most common. In

this paper the terms ‘interior and exterior’ are used to describe

the qualities of inside and outside space.

The thesis concerns the qualities of physical and perceptual

openness that characterise the relationship of inside and

outside space. Openness is primarily discussed as a physical

and perceptual quality of enclosure, a synonym of porosity;

openness to the movement of people and air, translucency;

openness to the perception of light, and transmittance; openness

to the passage of sound.

It is acknowledged that openness, or open, is also used to

describe other qualities of a school. Openness can be physical,

spatial, environmental, organisational, programmatic or

institutional. It is also understood that openness as a quality of

enclosure is often used a symbol of those other conceptions

of openness. These reciprocal rhetorical and metaphorical

associations are discussed in relation to the design proposal.

TERMS

17

The thesis asserts that the experience of openness is dependent

on non-physical boundaries that are related to the management

and organisation of space and a reflection of cultural and

social practices and expectations. In the context of schools

these non-physical boundaries are most often the product of

adult supervision. The design proposal questions how these

practices could be supported and adapted to sustain greater

openness. A terminology is derived to articulate this conception

of openness. The following are examples of terms that are used

in the description of the design proposals; visual connectivity,

perceptual openness, private sheltered corners.

F1.07

The following historical and theoretical discussion seeks to

establish the reciprocal relationship of educational reform, which

determines internal and external activity, and the conception and

experience of openness in progressive school design.

It is not the intention to provide a chronological account of this

aspect of school design since the development of thinking in

relation to openness is not linear. Despite various anomalies,

the established relationship of inside and outside space in

mainstream school design has remained relatively constant.

This chapter will draw instead on historical precedents to

describe various conceptions of inside and outside space that

characterise that relationship. In particular, the example of the

Open-Air School Movement is used to introduce the ideas of

‘child-centred education’ and the definition of the school as a

‘garden’ that are still relevant to the conception and experience

of openness today. Open-Air schools offer a useful precedent for

the negotiation of imperatives against greater openness and the

perceptual and organisational relationships of a school.

HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL CONTEXT

19

The adopted design process reflects the non-linearity of the

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

virgin site as a model of an educational idea. The development

of the proposal, like that of most existing schools, is defined by

consecutive compromises resulting from the balance of contrary

imperatives.

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

education’ and literally translates the conception of the school

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

houses.

F1.08

The relationship between internal and external space is

dependent on the roles assigned to those spaces and the

relative importance those activities are given in the organisation

of education. The educationalist Charles Hooper proclaimed

in 1660 that ‘there should be a paved court around the school,

part of which should be ‘shedded or cloistered’ over to enable

students to play outside in wet weather’ (Armitage, 2005).

Defining the schools’ immediate exterior environment as a play

space, Hooper’s conception of the ‘shedded or cloistered’ area

demonstrates both the importance of play activity and of outside

space rather than inside space for such activity. Although the

‘shedded or cloistered’ space is environmentally distinct from the

adjacent inside and outside spaces and could therefore support

a different range of activities, its limited purpose - designated as

a space only for play - indicates that the relationship between

inside and outside space is also limited. This reflects a long

established division in the organisation of space and activity in

schools.

20

Reflecting contemporary policy and practice the design proposal

challenges the established division of space. Physically similar

‘shedded or cloisted’ lobby spaces are conceived as filters

between inside and out rather than sheltered outside space.

F1.09

The relationship of internal and external space is also dependent

on the extent to which the role of inside and outside space is

shared. Hans Scharoun, a 20th century German architect whose

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

proposals influenced subsequent school design, believed that

‘the relationship of inside and outside space, of openness and

unity, formed the essence of a school’ (Burke & Grosvenor,

2008). He regarded ‘walls and doors…as metaphorical as

well as physical barriers to the potential flow and connectivity

believed to be crucial to the learning experience’ (Burke &

Grosvenor, 2008). By implication, it is suggested that, as

well as physical openness allowing for the same activity to

occur between inside and outside spaces, different activities

in different spaces could benefit from increased perceptual

openness or visual connectivity.

22

Scharoun proposed different qualities of enclosure to

accommodate children’s changing needs and ‘growing

consciousness’ (Jones 1995) (F1.10A). The identities of the

outside spaces of the design proposal are similarly distinct

((F1.10B); ‘nest like’ spaces for the youngest children (L), fully

enclosed spaces for older children shared by multiple classes

(M), and simultaneously supervised terraces at a higher level for

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

F1.10A

F1.10B

L

M

M

M

U U U U

L M U

F1.12

F1.11

The American architect Richard Neutra, a contemporary of

Scharoun, similarly advocated the shared use of inside and

outside space and the integration of adjacent outside space

into the area defined as the classroom. His drawings show

activity shared between inside and outside. In his illustrations

and published photographs of Corona School (F1.13-1.16), an

arc of chairs is shown from inside to outside. The concentration

of activity outside and the relative emptiness of the interior

(other than the objects of inhabitation), suggests that the inside

space is conceived as a refuge when the outside space is not

habitable, thus reinforcing the protective aspect of the interior

and therefore the experience of enclosure.

24

F1.13

F1.14

F1.16

F1.15

The relationship of internal and external space is greatly

influenced by the definition of play as a learning activity. The

external space of a school, a space for play, is most often

referred to as the playground, and the inside space, the

classroom, a class being a group of people who meet to be

taught. When this distribution of education is challenged, there

is an impact on the relationship between inside and outside

space. The definition of play as a learning activity is synonymous

with progressive ideas of ‘child centred education’, focused

on learning through play and the development of the child’s

personality and identity (Saint, 1987). The development of these

ideas coincided with the conception of the open-air school

movement.

The Open-Air Schools of the early-twentieth century provide

an important reference for this thesis due to the convergent

influences of social health reform and progressive educational

theory in their conception, a reflection of similar contemporary

prerogatives, and because of the enduring impact in

contemporaneous and subsequent mainstream school building

of the educational reform and architectural innovation that was

made both necessary and possible in the experimental context.

Throughout literature regarding the movement, the varied use of

the term ‘open-air’ to describe both a condition of architecture;

‘open-air design’, and an educational approach; ‘open-air class-

work and activity’, reflects different conceptions of openness that

were derived from the experiments.

26

F1.17

Children’s construction at Prestolee School 1937

The opportunity for similar, constructive, outdoor play

opportunities is dependent of the perception and acceptance

of risk. Risk is tolerated in managed play space. The courtyard

spaces of the proposed school allow for shared supervision and

could support similar constructive play opportunities.

Originating in Berlin in the 1890s, the Open-Air School

movement saw the creation of open-air cure stations for children

(Kindererholungsstätte) following investigations into the living

conditions of tuberculosis sufferers. Described as a social

disease, medically incurable tuberculosis was associated with

lack of sunlight, fresh air, and insanitary living and working

conditions, particularly in cities where high levels of migration

from the countryside had lead to mass urbanization and slum

conditions (Chatelet, 2008). It was believed that health and

welfare could be improved through cleanliness, hygiene and

exposure to sunlight and fresh air (Overy, 2006). Although early

emphasis was on health care treatment, the movement was

also influenced by educational theorists who advocate open-air

teaching methods. Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852) is commonly

referenced, he ‘envisaged the school as a garden in which the

teacher lived with her children’ (MacDonald, 1918).

In line with the first open-air school established in a pine forest

in a Berlin suburb in 1904 (F1.18), the early English open-air

schools occupied temporary pavilions erected in parkland. The

economy of the lightweight structures, exempt from building

regulations, encouraged the proliferation of open-air schools

in subsequent years (F1.19-20). The architectural historian

Geraint Franklin suggests that the English open-air schools were

characterised by an ‘anti-architectural’ response. He considers

the preference for adaptable buildings to have been a reaction

against the monumentality and inflexibility of existing, multi-

storey, masonry schools (Board of Education, 1933). Despite

this, later, more permanent, architect-designed, schools followed

the success of the early experiments.

28

F1.18

F1.19

F1.20

The architectural historian, Anne-Marie Chatelet described the

contradictory imperatives associated with the design of an open-

air school: ‘a building that would provide necessary protection

from the weather together with internal spaces that would

offer an open-air experience’ (Chatelet, 2008). The ‘challenge’

architecturally was to ‘build a protective envelope, while making

its substance as immaterial as possible’ (Chatelet, 2008). One

response to this challenge, to maximize the exposure of each

classroom to sunlight and fresh air, was the development of

separate block planning (Franklin, 2009). First employed at the

Uffculme Open-Air School in 1911 (F1.21-22) and described

as the ancestor to the ‘hen & chicks’ model: ‘single or paired

classrooms grouped loosely around a central hall’, separate

block planning was widely adopted in post-war primary schools,

many of which are still in use today (English Heritage, 2010).

30

F1.21

F1.22

The open-air conditions of the architecture and health incentives

necessitated the adoption and development of open-air teaching

methods (F1.24-25). The experimental context insured that

the impact of such educational innovation was recorded and

disseminated. Although reports of the educational success

of initial experiments were not conclusive, later accounts,

such as that of educationalist Broughton, suggested that the

open-methods were gaining popularity through the perceived

success of the schools (Broughton, 1914). Questioning their

success in his lecture, ‘A “non-evidence based” experiment in

social health’, the historian Mike Emanuel promulgates that

evidence to sustain the Open-Air School movement has never

been substantiated (Emanuel, 2010). Identifying it as one of a

number of ‘faith systems’ that had upheld ‘the belief that fresh

air is health-promoting’ Emanuel argues that the experimental

success of the schools was attributable largely to improved

diet thereby challenging educationalist Neil MacDonald’s

assumption of 1918 that; “…if normal children are placed under

the same conditions, they will show a still greater improvement,

due to their better physical status” (MacDonald, 1918). The

implication of Emanuel’s argument is that the open-air ideology

gained credibility in the educational context, as reflected in the

recommendations of government reports in the 1930s, through

the misperceived success of the experimental schools (F1.23).

32

F1.23

F1.24

F1.25

The influence of the open-air schools on subsequent school

building is difficult to define due to the temporary status of the

experimental buildings. As such, it is also difficult to confidently

draw a connection to the modernist themes that were influential

on subsequent mainstream school building. Chatelet’s

suggestion that the ‘long-standing influence’ of the open-air

experiments on school construction in Europe may be explained

by ‘convergence between the ideas applied in the experimental

context of the open-air schools and those propagated by

progressive architectural movements’ was supported by her

proposal that interpenetration of inside and outside spaces in the

schools corresponded with ‘spatial conceptions’ disseminated

by ‘cubism and neoplasticism’ (Chatelet, 2008). In his book,

Light, Air & Openness: Modern Architecture Between the Wars,

Architectural historian Paul Overy explains that early twentieth-

century architecture was characterised by a preoccupation with

‘cleanliness, health, hygiene, sunlight, fresh air and openness’,

consistent with Open-Air School movement ideals which

‘feature prominently in the written texts, photographs and films

employed to promote the modern movement’ (Overy, 2006).

The convergence of Modernist preoccupations and those

‘spatial conceptions’ was visibly distinct in the design of widely-

published European open-air schools at Suresnes, Paris by

Eugène Beaudoin and Marcel Lods (F1.26-27) and Cliostraat,

Amsterdam, Holland (F1.28-29).

34

F1.26

F1.27

F1.28

F1.29

Following the discovery of the antibiotic streptomycin, a

medicinal treatment for tuberculosis in 1944, few new open-air

schools opened and many closed (Chatelet, 2008). Their demise

may also be explained by the major improvements in public

health following the creation of the National Health Service,

improved nutrition, improved living conditions, slum clearances

and the introduction of the ‘Clean Air Act’ of 1956 (Emanuel,

2010). No longer necessary for heath, open-air conditions could

not be justified in response to a cultural resistance to discomfort.

Open-air classrooms were considered ‘too distracting and

uncontrollable’ and the weather ‘too unreliable’ (Overy, 2006),

the official position arguing that ‘children can get ample fresh

air by out of door activities’ (Emanuel, 2010). However, in

the post-war period when the health advantages of ‘open-air

design’ were negated by social and health reform, the legacy

of the open-air schools was still present, reflected through the

mainstream adoption of ‘open air class-work and activity’ and the

increased importance given to school sites and the preference

for single storey buildings that allowed for better access to

outside space (Ministry of Education, 1945). Through the

perceived empirical success of the schools, the conception of

their grounds as a ‘garden’ gained popular credibility as reflected

in the recommendations of pre-war reports and post-war policy

and regulations. It was this conception of the school, proposed

by Froebel and inseparable from the conception of ‘child centred

education’, that has been a consistent influence on mainstream

school building, which continues today.

36

F1.31

F1.30

Post war policy concentrated on ensuring the connection to,

and use of, outside space as opposed to achieving open-air

conditions internally. Building Bulletin 1 of 1949, ‘New Primary

Schools’, offers recommendations for the relationship between

classrooms and ‘outdoor class spaces’ (Ministry of Education,

1955) (F1.33). The use of the term ‘outdoor class’ is an

important designation, indicating the shared purpose of inside

and outside and enforcing the notion of the outdoors as a space

for learning. Although it is acknowledged that locating ‘outdoor

class areas adjacent to class space makes teacher supervision

easier’, it is also recommended that outdoor class spaces should

be ‘treated individually’ and ‘screened by shrubs’ from the class

spaces. The recommendations suggest that maintaining a

comfortable internal environment is prioritised over the potential

for simultaneous use of inside and outdoor class spaces. The

guide promotes that class spaces should be afforded the best

view of the site over ‘grass or planted area’ and recommends

that views from class spaces over hard areas cause the

‘uncomfortable’ reflection of heat and sound and glare in sunny

weather. The guide supports the notion of school grounds

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

A discussion regarding the “desirability of access from class

spaces to the garden”, which acknowledges the disadvantage of

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

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

period.

38

F1.32

Plan of James Peacock Primary School, 1966-7.

The penetration of courtyard spaces into the centre of the plan

increases the area of exterior enclosure and allows for multiple

directions of simultaneous supervision of inside and outside

space.

The argument made in Building Bulletin 1 for the individual

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

environment and minimise disruption of the classroom. The

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

distinct environment that would invite different types of activity.

The design proposal aims for a similar diversity of outside

spaces, adjacent to and isolated from the class base. The

design seeks to balance the same demand for supervision and

the maintenance of a comfortable internal environment through

the lobbying of the classrooms and courtyards.

F1.32

F1.33

The open-air schools were designed to achieve physical

openness, to expose children to the beneficial elements. In

doing so they produced a condition of almost total perceptual

openness, walls that were not open were more often than not

glazed or screened. The children would have experienced

the noise of the rain on the lightweight roofs of the temporary

building, the muffling effect of snow on the projection of sound,

the glare of the sun on wet surfaces, the smell of moist grass,

their papers blown off their desks in the wind. To overcome

these potential ‘distractions’ of the environment in a situation

where there was little enclosure, the educationalist Broughton

had cause to question which was the best way to orientate the

class (Broughton, 1914) (F1.34). In a condition of almost total

perceptual openness where the focus of attention is diffused, the

space does not readily support a front-facing form of teaching.

Broughton’s descriptions and illustrations of outdoor classes

suggest how activity could be adjusted to take advantage of this

perceptual openness.

This transparency of the inside space was in stark contrast

to the relative opacity that characterised previous school

building. The windows of the heavy masonry Victorian schools

that preceded the open-air schools were above the heads of

the children. The windows were large, offering considerable

ventilation and light but were intended to limit perceptual

openness to avoid distraction from the primary function the

40

F1.34

In his essay titled ‘Dissolving the School’, the architect Tijl

Vanmeirhaeghe describes the ‘ambiguous and uncomfortable’

relationship between school and façade (Vanmeirhaeghe, 2007).

He asserts that it is important for a school to make an ‘outward

show’ of its care for its pupils, without this distracting from its

seclusion. He identifies the potentially contradictory imperatives

and consequences of increased façade translucency in

relation to care, the notion of ‘child centred education’, and the

perception of the institution of the school. To achieve symbolic

translucency at the expense of the necessary seclusion could be

seen to contradict the belief central to ‘child centred education’

that ‘buildings must be at the service of the child’ and ‘must

not overawe or inhibit or distract for the sake of some ideal

of authority or proportion.’ Vanmeirhaeghe suggests that as

the notion of care has evolved from ‘order and discipline’ to

‘openness and hominess, light, hygiene and ingenuity’ the

size of windows, the order of transparency, has become a

measure for the degree in which the school is committed to the

child’s development. This translucency, characteristic of the

post-war schools including the Smithson’s Hunstanton School

(F1.35) which is the subject of the essay, was presented by the

Smithson’s as the ‘material upshot of new educational needs’ in

contrast to the previous school buildings where the ‘soundness

of upbringing’, the experience of order and discipline, was

symbolised by the ‘systematically punched gaps in the massive

school façade.’

Vanmeirhaeghe suggests that the glazed school has lost its

‘rhetorical clout’ and thus its ‘aura of caringness’ because it

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

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

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

rhetoric of the caring institution is expressed in an ‘interactive

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

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

42

CONCLUSION

The historical and theoretical discussion has established the

reciprocal relationship of education reform and the conception

and experience of openness in school design. The similarity

of historical and contemporary imperatives against greater

openness suggests that historical school designs that sought to

negotiate these imperatives, like the Open-Air schools, can be

useful and relevant precedents for contemporary school design.

It has been shown that the symbolic association of openness

in school design and the concept of ‘child centred education’

are changing and that the rhetoric of the ‘glazed school’ is

redundant. It is suggested that spatial and organisational

openness may have greater impact on the experience of

openness in the contemporary context.

F1.35

F2.00

This chapter addresses the influence on school design of

contemporary policy and curriculum recommendations regarding

the use of outdoor space and the connection to interior space.

Imperatives for and against greater openness are discussed

with a focus on the contrary influence of the sustainability

agenda on outdoors activity and school design. The perceptual

and organisational relationships that determine the experience

of openness are also analysed in relation to the physical

environment of schools.

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT

45

Contemporary policy advocates the extension of the area

of ‘learning’ between inside and outside spaces. Curriculum

guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage, for children up

to five years of age, says that where possible, inside and outside

environments should be linked ‘so that children can move

freely between them’ (Ofsted, 2008). The Ofsted (The Office

for Standards in Education) publication ‘Learning Outside the

Classroom: How far should you go?’ reports;

“In the best instances, the pupils had the freedom to move

between the different places purposefully and with autonomy,

hardly noticing whether they were in a classroom or not. They

were ‘just learning’, with staff ready to give appropriate support

when needed.” (Ofsted, 2008)

This attitude to the shared occupation of inside and outside

space is informed by contemporary research that reflects a long

tradition of pedagogical theory in advocating a more ‘play-based

approach’, particularly for younger children. In proposing that

such change will have implications for the design of more flexible

spaces, the CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built

Environment) publication ‘Creating Excellent Primary Schools’

references the ‘Rose Review of the Primary Curriculum’ (2009)

which suggests that the transition from the early years to Key

Stage 1 could be improved by a more ‘play-based approach’

(CABE, 2010).

46

Sketch perspectivelooking from head’soffice into creativespace

Sketch perspectivefrom bottom cornerof site

courtyard andplayground

breakoutroom/shared

resourceroom

Calm, smallerteaching spaces

corridor andquiet spaces

classbase outside classroom landscape andgardens

Interactivewhiteboard

Wet play areaconnected tooutside classroom

Landscapecreatesweatherandacousticbarrier toclassroom

Translucent roof createsusable outside space

Light and ventilationchimney ‘green lung’‘Quiet’

fresh airand view ofthe sky

Classbases canbe connected forteam teachingand larger groupactivities

Covered outsideclassroom extensionof teaching area

ICT facilitiesintegrated intodesign of classroom

Landscape‘cushion’ spaces

between buildings

Verandah andshading for

summer sun

3FE variation

1FE variation

2FE (core) plan

Shared teaching/corridor

KS2 ReceptionKS1 or KS2

Acoustic partition49m2 57m2 63m2 Movable wall allowingdifferent sizes of

classroom

Shared teaching/quiet area

Toilets

Wet area

‘Break out’ area

0 7m

Alternative sitevariations for 1, 2and 3FE

47

F2.01

Extract of a proposal by Cottrel + Vermeulen Architecture for an ‘exem-

plar’ primary school showing a diversity of inside and outside spaces and

associated activities adjacent to a ‘classbase’.

Contemporary policy regarding the use of outside space reflects

the ideals of the Reggio Approach, a progressive educational

movement originating in Reggio Emilia, Italy in 1950’s. The

environmental and spatial criteria of the Reggio Approach, as

outlined by Giulio Ceppi and Michelle Zini in ‘Children, Spaces,

Relations’ (1998), shares many similarities with the criteria for

environmental diversity as proposed by Steemers and Steane

in ‘Environmental Diversity in Architecture’ (2004). A criteria for

environmental diversity is proposed to maximise the didactic

potential of every space of the school through an understanding

of children’s behaviour, sensory awareness and learning

practices.

The book reflects current trends in educational theory, policy and

practice towards increased outside activity and the promotion of

play based learning, particularly in the earlier years. The criteria

for diversity proposed in ‘Children, Spaces, Relations’ resonates

with the requirement of the DFES ‘Foundation Stage Curriculum’

that a climate is created ‘where curiosity is encouraged and

where children can experience the unexpected’ (Merrick,

2006). The ‘Foundation Stage Curriculum’ similarly insists that

environments, materials and experiences are provided that

‘promote aesthetic awareness and an appreciation of things of

beauty’ (Merrick, 2006 (F2.04-2.04). Ceppi and Zini also promote

the popular idea that learning experiences should be self-lead,

leading to the dispersal of classes and the requirement of class

spaces, both internal and external, to support simultaneous,

potentially incompatible, activity. Contemporary policy and

progressive educational theory are shown to promote the

opportunity for activity to occur freely between inside and outside

space. This freedom of movement also satisfies the criteria for

environmentally diverse architecture; that people should be able

to select their immediate environment from a spectrum, through

which it is possible to achieve comfort.

48F2.02

F2.06 F2.05

F2.04

F2.03

In support of a policy that encourages the shared occupation of

inside and outside space, there has been a recent proliferation

in retrofit school canopies, particularly adjacent to nursery and

reception classes (F2.07). Marketing statements for canopy

suppliers refer to the ‘OFSTED requirement for outdoor learning’

and quote the Building Bulletin 71’The Outdoor Classroom’;

“Overhead elements such as a roof canopy create a sense of

enclosure and refuge... somewhere to sit or play, to feel, secure

from the rain pattering on the roof or the sun blazing down

and yet to be part of an outdoor world rather than be confined

to a building. It is another means of encouraging greater

use throughout the year.” (Department for Education and

Employment, 1999)

This statement reflects the findings of analysis of the influence

of the weather on playground access and break-time activity

in two inner London primary schools, Torriano Infants School

and Primrose Hill Primary School. Rain was shown to have

the greatest disruptive influence on playground access and

the ‘blazing’ sun was shown to have the greatest impact on

break-time activity. Marketing statements that refer to Cancer

Research UK’s Sun Smart campaign for schools play on a

growing paranoia of the risk of skin cancer for young children.

Between March and September, the schools were found to

restrict outdoor activity to shaded areas of the playground,

canopies, boundary conditions and under trees.

50

F2.07

In her study ‘Territorialising the Primary School Playground:

Deconstructing the Geography of Playtime’ Sarah Thompson

describes how boys and girls occupy outside space differently;

“Girls would claim and occupy walled areas and areas of seating

which gave them a sense of privacy. They would use these for

their dancing performances. Boys often kept large open areas to

themselves for football.’’ (Thomson, 2005)

Solar studies of the two schools (F2.10-11), showing that shaded

spaces were concentrated at the margins of the playgrounds

and that open areas where football is played are more exposed,

suggests that the response to sunlight has a greater impact on

the activity of boys.

52

F2.08

‘Even large shrubs and quite small trees can create

intimate shaded spaces for younger pupils’

(Billimore 1999)

F2.09

Solar study of the proposed site an existing buildings, without

roofs or internal floors, showing the cumulative solar radiation at

ground floor level for a typical school day in March.

F2.10 F2.11

It could be argued that the required flexibility, or necessary

ambiguity, in the organisation of inside and outside space is

inhibited by the area guidelines set out in Building Bulletin

99 ‘Briefing Framework for Primary Schools’ (Department

for Education and Skills, 2006). Although these guidelines

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

design of new and refurbished schools, from feasibility through

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

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

over and above this minimum to allow schools flexibility in the

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

with many such guidelines these minimum requirements often

become constraining targets where financial restrictions apply.

Where the design is required to adhere to these guidelines it

would be difficult to justify a spatial organisation that defines

flexible class zones which extend to adjacent circulation

areas, shared ancillary spaces and outside areas, where the

boundaries of the classrooms are difficult to define and are in

isolation below the guideline area.

Some of the proposed classrooms are below the minimum

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

proposal that the limited area of the classrooms will be

supplemented by additional adjacent space, on different levels

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

supervisable, would be above the minimum guideline area. This

arrangement allows for a diversity of spaces and environments

to be created that could maximise the potential use of the

available limited space. Adhesion to the guidelines, requiring

the enlargement of spaces and their replication, would exceed

the available area and impinge further on the available outside

space.

54

F2.12

Typical classroom arrangement

1 Class base

2 Lobby

3 Mezzanine

4 Terrace

5 Courtyard

6 Playground

2

1

5

6

4

4

3

F2.13-4

Proposal by Walters and Cohen Architects for an ‘exemplar’

primary school including a central heart space.

Library in the heart of the schoolOutdoor classrooms

Cross-section (top)and views of core2FE design

A current trend in school planning is the organisation of

classrooms around an internal hub or heart, a multifunctional

breakout space with the aim of increasing connectivity between

class groups and children of different ages that can concentrate

class activity internally rather than externally. It could be argued

that the organisational impetus of progressive education thinking

can also contradict the pursuit of greater openness.

The architect Mark Dudek describes the potential of spatial

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

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

by the shared space of the school allows for such spatial loops.

The available space is perceived as the maximum distance of

an unbroken loop through connected spaces (F2.16). Similarly,

in the street playground it is proposed that it will be possible to

weave in and out of the existing boundary wall.

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

Ground floor plan ofcore 2FE design

First floor plan

20(art)

20(food)

heart ofschool

outdoorclassroom

23

25

courtyard

parking

disabledparking

pupilentrance

publicsquare

bus stop cycle racks

16 15

31

43

43

45

16 15

10

10

30 28

nurserycourt

nurseryentrance

outdoor class

5(quiet)

31(work)

4

40

1

88 6 639

33

35

38

42

29

45

36

5

6

6

6

6

443446

22

24

26

26

21

27

19

amphitheatre

8 6

6

6

6

13

13

8

11

11

8

14

14

8

9

9

8

8

For key to planssee inside front

cover

17

12

12 10

47

42

37

entrance

56

F2.13

F2.14

F2.15

F2.16

Proposed ground floor planShowing possible spatial loops

Beyond the immediate boundary of enclosure, contemporary

policy promotes the conception of school grounds as a vital

resource for curriculum based learning. Furthermore Building

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

of outside spaces (Department for Education and Employment,

1999). The CABE publication ‘Creating Excellent Primary

Schools’ similarly suggests that investing in ‘stimulating and

creative’ places in school grounds, which support ‘curriculum

based learning’, can offer children ‘rich and varied experiences

that may not be available to them at home’ (CABE, 2010). This

statement reflects the commonly held perception that children’s

opportunities for outdoor play are diminishing.

Reflecting this conception of outside space and reaction to

the perceived lack of outdoor experiences for young children,

experimental ‘forest’ schools have been established which draw

influence from established Scandinavian schools where children

are thought as much of possible outside (F2.17). Like the

‘Open-Air’ schools, the perceived success of these experimental

schools has caused educators to question how these methods

could be translated to mainstream schools and in an urban

context (Knight, 2011).

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

an urban context is the creation of natural habitats through

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

access to outside space by providing shade and shelter. The

proposal includes the retention of existing trees and the planting

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

maximum shaded area (F2.18).

58

F2.17

F2.18

Proposed ground floor planRed dashes indicate habitat areas

Initiated by government policy, the diversification of the

playground to increase the learning potential of the school site

has been seen to have reduced the available space for play at

break times (Thomson, 2005).

The case study showed that to mitigate the lack of available

space, partly as a result of this diversification, playground

access for different age groups was carefully scheduled. Where

classrooms are adjacent to the playground scheduling of play

activity and of break times can greatly impact the relationship

between inside and outside space. The incompatibility of

simultaneous activity inside and outside by different groups,

boisterous playground games and concentrated class work,

could be an imperative for greater enclosure. Where this

scheduling of simultaneous activity is necessary, where the

available space is constrained, this incompatibility is critical. The

scheduling of playground access also removes the potential

opportunity for children of different ages and from different class

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

split playgrounds.

The proposal addresses the imperative for increased enclosure

of the incompatibility of simultaneous activity inside and outside.

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

playground, an existing street, which is accessed via the

communal ‘piazza’ space of the school (F2.21). All classrooms

open directly onto adjacent courtyard spaces. The year one and

two classrooms, which are adjacent to the main playground,

occupy the masonry shells of existing houses, whose front

facades are punctured by relatively small windows. This hard

playground edge is in contrast to the open arrangement at the

rear of the classrooms which are open to a breakout space and

which enjoy direct access to courtyard gardens.

60

F2.20

F2.21

F2.21

Proposed ground floor planClass bases shaded red

1 Nursery 5 Piazza2 Reception 6 Kitchen3 Key Stage 1 7 Courtyard4 Key Stage 2 8 Playground

4 4 4 4

677

7

7

5

8

8

1

2

3

3

3

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

the Outdoor Play Experience within the Primary School’ the play

expert Marc Armitage identifies that the stepped plans of older

schools’ delineated spaces in the playground, the particular

dimensions of which allow them to be easily appropriated for

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

games from other potentially disruptive activities. He proposes

that the external wall of the school building, the boundary

between interior and outside space, is therefore capable of

creating places and supporting activity, irrespective of the

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

been identified as a bullying risk as they inhibit supervision.

The surface of the boundary will also influence the activity it

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

school, Armitage identifies a downpipe that has been used by

multiple generations as the base for a variation of the game

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

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

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

surfaces would lack this learning potential. The requirement for a

diversity of surfaces is a potential imperative against openness.

A potentially negative impact of the dissolving of the interior and

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

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

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

the balance between openness and transparency, to maximise

the didactic potential of the interior and exterior in combination

and facilitate supervision, and opacity and hardness, to support

a diversity of outdoor games.

The greater the proximity of the boundary of inside and outside

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

the imperatives against openness; security, pollution and

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

defensive, and where translucency can lead to underuse of the

adjacent playground area, there may be a good argument to

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

edges that are eliminated from the buildings’ enclosure.

The proposed playground - the existing street - is separated

from public space by boundary buildings with a public function

(F2.23). These spaces provide the necessary isolation of the

playground to allow unrestricted access to the limited available

outside space without creating a defensive exterior boundary

to the school. The programmatic ambition of these spaces

reflects Vanmeirhaeghe’s suggestion that the new rhetoric of

the carrying institution is expressed in the openness of school

buildings to the ‘outside world’ to facilitate greater parent

participation. The main entrance to the school adjacent to the

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

sheltered by the railway arch, is conceived as a transitional

space that can open both to the public and to the school (F2.25).

It is a meeting space, a gallery for the school to communicate

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

meeting venue . The minimal elements of enclosure provide

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

the space between an existing boundary wall to the playground

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

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

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

and allows for controlled views into the playground. The quiet

first floor space, removed from the street, is conceived as a tree

house in the canopy of the new trees.

62F2.22

F2.23

Ground floor planBoundary buildings shaded red

F2.24

View of the library from the playground

F2.25

View of the playground and library through the entrance building

The OFFSTED publication ‘Learning Outside the Classroom:

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

made an explicit link between the use of school grounds and

sustainable development’ promoting ‘pupils understanding that

care for their immediate surroundings is the first step in caring

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

environmental consciousness, as a product of the sustainability

agenda, could be translated into a desire for a greater

physical and perceptual connection to the immediate outside

environment. The corresponding increase in the porosity and

translucency of school buildings could reflect a new rhetoric of

openness.

Conversely, It could be argued that the sustainability agenda,

through the pursuit of reduced energy consumption, has

indirectly had a negative impact on the experience of openness

because of the increased isolation, insulation and interiorisation

of the classroom environment. The adoption of passive

ventilation strategies, in particular those that rely on ceiling

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

Coupled with the introduction automatic building management

systems, the opportunity for users - the teachers and children

– to manipulate the environment of the classroom reduces the

degree of porosity of enclosure.

The proposal is for the retention and adaptation of the existing

buildings that define a diversity of environmental and spatial

conditions that could be adapted to the needs of the new

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

of the existing boundaries of enclosure by introducing new

threshold screens. Peter Fisher describes the ‘highly articulated

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

a series of two dimensional layers but as three-dimensional

volumes that help to elaborate key spatial relationships and

encourage particular patterns of activity.’ My conception of the

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

screens will create microclimatic and spatial conditions that

will support a diversity of activites. In ‘Children, Spaces and

Relations’ Guilio Ceppi and Michele Zini underscore the ‘value

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

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

Starting with a condition of absolute transparency, the collages

are an attempt to simulate how the objects of occupation and

the effects of the environment interrupt this transparency and

provide the necessary opacity thus ensuring ‘a sense of the

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

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

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

space’ (Kohn, TBC). The collages are an attempt to achieve

a similar dynamic ambiguity by framing glazing ‘against a

backdrop of partial shadow’. Through anticipating this opacity of

occupation I intend to retain the transparency and adaptability of

the screens. The collages also show the potential of translucent

surfaces as screens for the projection of light.

64

F2.26

F2.27

Ceppi and Zini also propose that a school should have a specific

identity, an ‘architectural language’ and ‘precise identity’ that is

instantly recognisable (Ceppi & Zini, 1998). The proposal is to

retain the masonry and plaster walls of the existing buildings but

to remove the existing floor and roofs. The lightweight screens,

the timber construction of which will be clearly distinguishable

from the existing masonry walls, will define enclosure in the

amalgamated building. The distinct identity of the screens,

articulated according to according to location and orientation, will

provide the required recognisability (F2.28).

66

F2.28

68

The articulation of the screens will determine the experience

of the weather and appreciation of the climate from the inside

spaces. F2.30 shows the effect of the rain on the view through

adjacent vertical and sloping glazing. F2.31 shows the mud

spattered trace of a past rain shower on floor mounted glazing.

F2.29

F2.30 F2.31

70

F2.32

Ptototype of roof glazing which holds a small amount of rain. A

rain gauge of sorts. The thin film of water produces spectrum

effects as shown.

72

F2.33

Observations of the roof glazing prototype in windy and calm

conditions.

F2.34

Extracts from a series of photographs showing the experience of

a rain shower beneath a glazed roof.

F2.33

F2.34

74

Ceppi and Zini propose that a school should be ‘open to

modification by the children’ and that their presence should be

revealed in a ‘second skin made of writings, images, materials,

objects, and colors’ (Ceppi and Zini 1998). The design proposal

seeks to support this potential both inside and outside. F2.33 is

a study of external screens that can be modified and decorated

by the children.

F2.33

76

F2.36

As well as defining a diversity of environments, the existing

spaces - warehouses, passage, street, houses and domestic

gardens - have specific associations that will relate the school

to the wider context (F2.36). They therefore contribute to

the conception of the school as a ‘microcosm’ of the city, as

propagated by Herman Herzberger amongst others, and satisfy

the ‘fundamental concept’ of the Reggio Approach of the school:

that architecture should embody the relationship of the school

and its context through ‘osmosis’ of surrounding ‘aesthetics’ and

‘the distribution of space’ (Ceppi & Zini, 1998).

There is a hierarchy to the existing buildings and spaces and

a clear differentiation of front and back that could influence

the organisation of the school and perception of new spaces.

The retention of existing domestic thresholds between the

playground and classrooms, for example, could exaggerate the

domestic quality of the classroom, as a space that belongs to

77

The physical characteristics of the inside and outside spaces of

a school provide a framework for adult supervision. The limiting

parameters of space and available activities to children are

often governed by long established rules and are affected by the

availability and authority of the supervisors who uphold them.

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

is largely dependent on the perception of adults. As identified

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

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

limiting factor of outside activity in schools (SPTC and Grounds

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

on playground access and break time activity in two inner

London primary schools, Torriano Infants School and Primrose

Hill Primary School, showed that children were allowed to play

outside in almost all weather conditions if dressed appropriately.

This attitude is epitomised by Trish, a senior playground

supervisor at Torriano Infants School, who said on a walk

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

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

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

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

being outside for an extended period of time may have been

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

reluctance to let children go outside ‘throughout the year and in

all weathers’, although related to a lack of resources, may reflect

a ‘cultural resistance to the perceived discomforts of the outdoor

environment and a concern to protect children, and themselves,

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

discomfort’ to the claim that, compared to other countries, the

outdoor environment is not a central feature of the UK’s cultural

identity. The marketing statements for school canopies, it could

be argued, reflect a cultural resistance to discomfort in referring

to the ‘extremes of weather’ and ‘the unpredictable climate’.

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

the interior classroom the definition of its boundaries, for the

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

line cast by a canopy or overhanging roof could be appropriated

as a temporary boundary. As previously discussed in response

to Charles Hooper’s proclamation regarding the provision

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

classroom, in concentrating activity against an established

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

of connected hard surfaces, perhaps in conjunction with key

division of the façade could be used to define boundaries.

The area defined is always dependent on supervision. If the

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

likely to be stricter.

My proposal is to extend the classrooms into private courtyards

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

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

space their own and explore the margins without having to refer

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

supervision on a number of axis. Although the children will

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

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

78

F2.37

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

yards are linked by communal spaces.

F2.38

80

F2.39

Lavender Children’s Centre by John McAslan and Partners.

The deep timber screen is transparent from the front and opaque

from the side creating alcoves for separate activity.

F2.40-43

Sketch model of a stepped classroom corner which is similarly

transparent in one direction and opaque in another. The alcoves,

lit by reflected south light, are articulated with simple furniture.

F2.39

F2.40 F2.41

F2.42 F2.43

My vision of the courtyards, that are visually and physically

linked to the public spaces of the school, is inspired by the

concept for Terragni’s St Elia School (F2.44-45) as described

by Peter Fisher in his essay ‘Experiencing climate; architecture

and environmental diversity’; a spatially ambiguous ‘physically

external space (with a real sky)’ that is ‘read as a room within

the building’ (Fisher, 2004). David Kohn describes how the

‘framing of the playroom and garden’ by the hole cut in the entry

façade ‘collapses the spaces of play central to the school, both

physically and psychologically, onto the schools public face’

(Kohn, TBC) In my proposal the equivalent view of the entrance,

framed by the railway arch, encompasses the street, playground,

and the existing houses, classrooms. Through isolation and

occupation these spaces, the characteristics of which refer to

the city, are defined and perceived as a space for play.

82

F2.44

F2.45

F2.45

Contrary to expectation, the analysis of outside activity at

Torriano Infants School and Primrose Hill School showed that

where canopied areas were accessed indirectly from nursery

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

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

physically adjacent to the nursery and reception rooms, are

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

arrangement is reliant on the separate supervision of the inside

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

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

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

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

A lobby is a transitional space where people prepare themselves

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

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

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

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

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

review of Yateley Newlands Primary School, Dean Hawkes

describes the ‘gradual transition’ from the outside achieved by

the continuation inside the building of ‘external finishes such

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

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

consistent with those of a lobby. I propose to create a similar

lobby-like condition, without spatial restriction (F2.48). The

shared practical areas at Torriano, which form a lobby to the

playground for adjoining class bases, are a good precedent for

this spatial arrangement. The robust surface of the practical

rooms, in contrast to the class bases, is a continuation of the

exterior hardness required to support messy practical activity. In

my proposal, this practical lobby space is not self-contained. The

shared circulation space linking the classrooms to the shared

spaces of the school and the courtyard gardens is defined as

the lobby, where practical facilities, sinks and work surfaces, are

located within the visual axis of each class. This arrangement

avoids the compartmentalisation of space that would otherwise

be necessary. The arrangement protects the class base as a

space where greater control and isolation of the environment is

required.

I propose that the lobby space will overcome the need for

canopies. The lobby space - the environment of which, like a

canopy, is an approximation of the outside environment - will

support similar activity and allow children to feel close to the

weather (F2.47). The retention and planting of trees and the

articulation of the new screens will create deep shade. As

opposed to canopies that only enable the use of a small part

of the outside space in bad weather, I hope that the proposed

lobby, by embracing the courtyards, will enable the use and

enjoyment of a larger area.

84

F2.47

F2.48Proposed ground floor planLobbies shaded red

1 Nursery 5 Piazza2 Reception 6 Kitchen3 Key Stage 1 7 Courtyard4 Key Stage 2 8 Playground

4 4 4 4

677

7

7

5

8

8

1

2

3

3

3

The site area is within the minimum requirement, as defined by

Building Bulletin 99, for a school on a restricted site. The chosen

site is justified by the commitment to provide an area of outside

space almost equivalent to the total site area, thus requiring

the majority of roof spaces to be terraced. The proposal must

therefore allow for openness vertically as well as horizontally.

The provision of outside space above classrooms would

usually prevent the simultaneous use of both inside and outside

space. The proposal is for terraces to be collectively accessible

from the central shared space of the school and individually

accessible from each classroom via a mezzanine (F2.49). These

quiet mezzanine spaces, conceived as winter gardens that

trap heat in the winter and aid stack ventilation in the summer,

are supervisable from the classrooms. This arrangement could

avoid the potentially unproductive isolation of SEN (Special

Educational Needs) provision by providing a space for private

work and separate supervision with a close relationship to

outside space.As previously discussed, in ‘Dissolving the School’,

Vanmeirhaeghe makes the connection between the translucency

of a schools façade and the caring impression of the institution

(Vanmeirhaeghe, 2007). Perhaps, particularly for older schools,

the same could be said of school roofs, under which the children

are sheltered from the weather. There is rhetorical association

to be capitalised by containing an entire institution ‘all under

one roof’. The adoption of flat roof construction makes the roof

largely invisible and potentially negates this symbolic potential. It

could be argued that the proliferation of canopies, which visibly

make outside space available by providing shelter from the rain

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

institution.

My proposal is to remove the existing pitched roofs of the

houses and warehouse buildings that will be converted into

the school. The absence of roofs from buildings that you would

expect to have them will make explicit the decision to allow the

weather in, closer to the interior spaces and within reach of the

children. Enclosure is defined on a smaller scale, individually

rather than collectively.

86

F2.49Proposed first floor planMezzanines shaded red

1 Nursery 2 Reception3 Key Stage 14 Key Stage 25 Staff Room

4 4 4 4

5

1

2

3

3

3

CONCLUSION

It has been shown that the influence of contemporary policy on

the use of outside space and the connection to inside space in

school design has resulted in the proliferation of canopies and

the diversification of the playground. The analysis suggests that

these developments have had a mixed impact on the experience

of environmental diversity and outside activity.

The sustainability agenda is shown to have a contrary influence

on the conception of openness, both encouraging greater

outside experience and the simultaneous interiorisation of the

classroom environment.

Analysis of the physical environment of schools has shown that

boundaries are important to define outside places in support

of different types of play and that the layering of boundaries,

to form lobbies between inside and outside space, contrary to

expectation, increases opportunities for outside activity. This

reflects the indentified cultural resistance to discomfort that

leads to the safeguarding of the classroom environment. The

analysis suggests that school design should pursue perceptual

rather than physical openness that allows for the simultaneous

supervision of internal and external space and the perception of

the weather and maximum access to outside space to achieve

the greatest didactic potential of the school.

88

F2.50

CONCLUSION

It has been shown that the influence of contemporary policy on the use

of outdoor space and the connection to internal space in school design

has resulted in the proliferation of canopies and the diversification of the

playground. The analysis suggests that these developments have had a

mixed impact on the experience of environmental diversity and outdoor

activity.

The sustainability agenda is shown to have a contrary influence on the

conception of openness, both encouraging greater outdoor experience

and the simultaneous interiorisation of the classroom environment.

Analysis of the physical environment of schools has shown that boundar-

ies are important to define outside places in support of different types

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

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

ties for outside activity. This reflects the indentified cultural resistance to

discomfort that leads to the safeguarding of the classroom environment.

The analysis suggests that school design should pursue perceptual

rather than physical openness that allows for the simultaneous supervi-

sion of internal and external space and the perception of the weather

and maximum access to outdoor space to achieve the greatest didactic

potential of the school.

CONCLUSION

The pilot thesis has provided a theoretical basis for considering

the relationship of inside and outside space in a primary schools

and a practical understanding of the contrary imperatives for

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

critical and practical understanding has encouraged productive

questioning of the proposals. These have been judged in relation

to criteria for openness and environmental diversity, derived from

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

maximum didactic potential of the school through balancing a

range of environments, of degrees of openness and enclosure.

The holistic nature of architectural design, particularly in relation

to a programmatically complex school building means that it is

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

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

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

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

what would otherwise be closed (Ligtelijn, 1999).

The pilot thesis has shown that the relationship of inside

and outside space is largely dependent on the organisation,

conception and distribution of activity inside and outside and

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

also been understood that educational practice will adapt to new

environments. A greater understanding and critical analysis of

different types of play and the physical parameters required to

support them could inform a more sensitive design response.

Having been shown to reflect current policy the spatial and

environmental criteria of the Reggio Approach have been

considered in relation to the proposals. It has been understood

that successful design will maximise the didactic potential whilst

safeguarding comfort and providing the opportunity for the

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

own needs.

In support of supervision, starting from a condition of multi

directional openness, the design proposal affords the opportunity

for space to be compartmentalised and for transparent

boundaries to be obscured. The creation of closed corners in

combination with open views allows for the desired ‘connectivity’

between spaces whilst creating concentrated places within those

spaces.

The teachers’ appreciation of the potential of both inside and

outside spaces is fundamental to the children’s experience of

these spaces. The design proposal is limited by the absence

of the involvement of an active client or the opportunity for

constructive participation of children. Although this study has

considered the impact of these organisational relationships, the

input of teachers could greatly influence subsequent design

proposals.

The design proposal for the conversion of an existing collection

of buildings into a primary school aims to achieve the desired

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

the classroom by defining spaces, through new partitions of

various degrees of physical and perceptual openness, and

that encompass existing spaces with different environmental

characteristics, inside and outside of the existing buildings.

The adopted criteria for environmental diversity is qualitative and

non-specific to schools although a justification for such diversity,

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

Contrary to this, the requirements of the building regulations

concerning internal environments are specific and quantitative.

These regulations are an imperative against greater openness

and environmental diversity, particularly in the restricted urban

context where it is not possible to accommodate a multitude of

spaces with the distinct environments. A possible direction for

this research could be to critically challenge these regulations

by establishing a spectrum of comfort that takes into account

the pattern of occupation and which allows for adaption to a

90

91

diverse environment. Coupled with analysis of the proposed

environments, this could inform an understanding of the

operational limits of any proposal.

The design project has prompted me to question how best

to represent openness, to describe the relationship of inside

and outside space in the production of design information in

support of a critical design process, to share ideas and to foster

collaboration. My period in practice has already exposed me to

different types of information production and will give me cause

to question the efficacy of these means of representation.

The period in practice will also allow me to improve my

understanding of the impact of contemporary policy and

regulations and to develop an appreciation of the relative

importance that this aspect of school design in the design and

procurement process.

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

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

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

BOARD OF EDUCATION. (1933). The Hadow Report (1933). LONDON: HM Stationery Office.

BRE. (n.d.). BREEAM. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from www.breeam.orgBrian Billimore, J. B. (1999). The Outdoor Classroom. Department of Education and Employment.

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

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

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

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

Chatelet, A.-M. (2008). A breath of fresh air : open-air schools in Europe. In N. d.-S. Marta Gutman, Designing modern childhoods (pp. 107-127). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

DAVIES, N. R. (1939). TEN YEARS’ HISTORY OF THE CHELSEA OPEN-AIR NURSERY SCHOOL 1929-1939. LONDON.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franklin, G. (2009). INNER-LONDON SCHOOLS 1918-44 A Thematic Study. Research Department Report Series 43-2009 . English Heritage.

Gillard, D. (2006). ‘The Hadow Reports: an introduction’. Retrieved from the encyclopaedia of informal education: www.infed.org/schooling/had-ow_reports.htm

Greater London Authority. (2011). The London Climate Change Adapta-tion Stratergy. LONDON: Greater London Authority.

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

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

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

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

Jones, P. B. (1995). Hans Scharoun. LONDON: Phaidon.

Jones, T. (2012, 12 08). Play Supervisor and Staff Governor Torriano Infants School. School Visit. (J. Purkiss, Interviewer) LONDON.

Knight, S. (2011). Forest School for All. LONDON: Sage.

Kohn, D. (n.d.). Lessons from a Nursery School.

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

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

92

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL. (1944). REPLANNING LONDON SCHOOLS. LONDON.

Lord Astor, M. H. (1935). A TEN YEAR PLAN FOR CHILDREN. LON-DON: R. ANDREW SPOTTISWOODE & CO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ofsted. (2008). Learning outside the classroom: How far should you go? London: Ofsted.

O’Hare, B. B. (1989). Disruptive Behaviour and Weather Patterns in a West Cumbria Secondary School . British Educational Research Journal , 15 (1), 89-94.

Overy, P. (2006). Light, air & openness : modern architecture between the wars. LONDON: Thames & Hudson.

Oxford University Press. (1997). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Cur-rent English. (D. Thompson, Ed.) LONDON: BCA.

Play England. (2008). Design for Play: A guide to creating successful play spaces. LONDON: DfE Publications.

Play England. (2011). Supporting school improvement through play: An evaluation of South Gloucestershire’s Outdoor Play and Learning Programme . LONDON: National Children’s Bureau.

Potvin, A. (2004). Intermediate Environments. In K. S. Steane, Environ-mental diversity in architecture (pp. 121-142). London: Spon Press.

Robson, G. (2011, 12 04). Head Teacher at Torriano Infants School. (J. Purkiss, Interviewer) LONDON.

Saint, A. (1987). Towards a social architecture : the role of school-build-ing in post-war England. LONDON: New Haven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wright, H. M., & Gardner-Medwin, R. (1938). THE DESIGN OF NURS-ERY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. LONDON: THE ARCHITECTUR-AL PRESS.

93

IMAGE REFERENCESF1.01Dulwich Nursery School by Samuels and HardingTHE DESIGN OF NURSERY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1938P19

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

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

F1.09THE MODERN SCHOOL1949P15

F1.10Darmstadt School ProjectHans Scharoun Monograph 1995P139

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

F1.12Geschwister Scholl Gesamtschule LunenHans Scharoun Monograph 1995P147

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

F1.15Corona Schoolhttp://www.lapl.org/Accessed 21.07.2012

F1.16Corona Schoolhttp://artepedrodacruz.wordpress.com/Accessed 21.07.2012

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

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

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

F1.20Darlington Open-Air Schoolhttp://www.pbase.com/csdesignAccessed 21.07.2012

F1.21Uffculme Open Air SchoolTHE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914P25

F1.22Uffculme Open Air SchoolTHE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914P22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F1.31Open-air class in St James Parkhttp://cbhg.orgAccessed 21.07.2012

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

94

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

F1.34Uffculme Open Air SchoolTHE OPEN AIR SCHOOL 1914P31

F1.35Hunstanton SchoolOASE (Nai), no. 72 2007P15F2.00Authors photographBrecknock Primary School, Camden, London2011F2.01Cottrel + Vermeulen Architecture Exemplar Primary SchoolSchools for the future: exemplar designs concepts and ideas 2003P36-38

F2.02Childs drawingChildren, spaces, relations 1998P139

F2.03Diana Municipal PreschoolChildren, spaces, relations 1998P37

F2.04Outdoor activitiesChildren, spaces, relations 1998P98

F2.05Recording the rainChildren, spaces, relations 1998P98

F2.07Authors photographsSchools in Camden and Islington, London2011

F2.08‘Even large shrubs and quite small trees can create intimate shaded spaces for younger pupils’Building Bulletin 71 The Outdoor Classroom 1999P20

F2.13-14Walters and Cohen Exemplar Primary SchoolSchools for the future: exemplar designs concepts and ideas 2003P30-32

F2.16Schools and Kindergartens 2000P43

F2.17Bell Heath Outdoor Education Centrewww.educationalvisitsuk.comAccessed 21.07.2012

F2.22Hillcross Primary SchoolImage courtesy of Curl La Tourelle Architects2011

F2.26www.breathingbuildings.comAccessed 21.07.2012

F2.31AU H&DEMP312

F2.37Diana Municipal PreschoolChildren, spaces, relations 1998P139

F2.39Lavender Children’s CentreSchools and Kindergartens A Design ManualP69

F2.24-25St Elia SchoolLessons from a Nursery SchoolImages unatributed

95