Seattle Design Guidelines
Section 2 of 2

Ironically, school architects & planners do not take a lead in these meetings until the 4th and final group activity. The district is adamant that the physical characteristics and appearance of the school must flow from the critical reform needs. Therefore aesthetic and spatial issues are rarely discussed until the important groundwork of student learning needs have been discussed and transformation goals set. The district educational director and principal run the first meetings with architects and planners keenly participating with the rest of the group in a series of rich discussions and activities. Members work together to gain knowledge of the desired educational purposes and how the building layout may eventually best support student-learning activities.

The 4th and final activity led by the principal and architect involves “day-in-the-life” narratives created and performed by smaller teams of committee members. Afterwards teams also create their own ideal campus plan through a design charette. The day-in-the-life activity has been successful in changing some preconceived mental concepts. The committee breaks into teams of 3 to 4 individuals and each group imagines themselves as a student during a typical school day. They create a name, gender, age, likes and dislikes, etc. and then walk their imaginary persona through the school day and imagine what they will encounter. Time permitting; the smaller groups may also do this for an administrator and teacher as well. When the scenarios are reported back to the larger group, a more intimate and real sense of student life is portrayed.

After the role-playing scenario activity, each group then utilizes all the information they have gathered to date to create their perfect model of a new school [see illustrations]. All groups are given a shopping list of components. The charettes should be facilitated with the help of staff from the architect or planner’s office as these individuals can more easily translate the group’s vision into a viable plan. The solutions tend to be fairly schematic, as they should be at this stage, but they also more closely align with the school’s transformation plan requirements then with a more traditional planning process.

Click on diagram for larger image

Architects and planners may then take this rich collection of information gathered from these activities and begin the traditional schematic design process for the school. Follow up meetings with the committee occur as schemes and budgets evolve. Committee field trips to other innovative schools are encouraged by the district to help expand the possibilities for novel solutions.

The process from this time on looks is similar to other school planning efforts with one critical exception. The School Design Process Manual contains a “check-list’ (see manual) that accesses how well the committee and designer meets the school’s transformation criteria based on the 7 high achieving school qualities (see section 1). Future iterations of the design should also be measured against this unique checklist (see box above right to download a free copy of the checklist).

It should be noted that Seattle Public School District does have some sensible building and construction guidelines, especially when they affect building infrastructure systems and maintenance standards. Many of these design standards may be reviewed or revisited with district project managers and facility people under special circumstances. Some examples include: HVAC systems that tend to be maintenance friendly, long lasting and consequently more expensive; A practical size for window glazing panes so future replacement is more economical; A maximum number of light fixture tube types specified so that multiple stocking supplies in the district warehouse is not a problem; Floor finish recommendations for certain kinds of activities and that may be regularly maintained, et cetera.

There is also a list of site and building considerations at the end of the school design process manual that is a common sense overview that may be helpful for any school-planning project. Some typical considerations involve: Adequate sizes of and means for access to site related elements; Neighborhood scale and context; Landscaping and water retention; Signage and way finding; Day lighting, illumination, views; Acoustical considerations, Community use of the facilities, et cetera. The Seattle approach is a meaningful process that overall is much more progressive than most.

When introduced in 2002, the manual wasn’t without it skeptics. The district contracts with a professional managing firm (Heery International) that is involved with most of its construction projects. The district also has several in-house project managers many of whom were not convinced that this demanding process would be that successful. Although the manual is still in its infancy and will likely be updated in the future, a recent gathering of those who developed the manual heard positive reports from those in the field who were now more convinced of its worth.

Many of the managers felt that recent school designs and layouts now have a deeper purpose and better relationship to district and school goals than before. Several projects in the district have now emerged from this unique process and the experiences of design team members and resultant solutions will be shared in the near future.

Time and effort are required for most meaningful events in our lives… school design & planning is no exception. It is gratifying to know that when a client is well informed, the outcome is worthy, and the process fertile… great things can and will be accomplished.