Jack Flynn
9/12/02

I have followed the discussion in the Ed Spec Forum and now that the participants have had the opportunity to ventilate, it seems to me that a reality check is in order.

Aside from increasing enrollment and the deterioration of worn-out World War II era buildings, the most significant force for new educational facilities has been litigation. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming have been forced by lawsuits to address the problem of the traditional lack of state support for school construction.

A report prepared by the National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, entitled “Building America’s Schools: State Efforts to Address School Facility Needs,” outlines the actions taken by various States in support of school facility construction programs. Released in June 2000, the Report indicates that, of the 43 states responding to the survey, 36 had some form of state level financial support of school construction.

The website of the Educational Design Institute at Mississippi State University provides links to twenty-nine state educational agencies that publish facility planning guidelines. The review of these twenty-nine “guidelines” may be an appropriate dissertation topic but I’m not about to do it. I am willing to bet, however, that they include many of the items that we consider to be ed specs.

Early in the discussion, Prakash Nair observed that he has found the requirement for ed specs has been written into law in many states. Here in New Jersey, the ed spec requirement is established in the New Jersey Administrative Code which requires that written ed specs be part of the school construction project application and that they include, among other things, ” … a building space program that indicates the number and area in square feet of each instructional, specialized instructional, administrative and support space.”

On July 29, the Governor signed an Executive Order requiring that all proposals for school construction projects include the LEED guidelines developed by the US Green Buildings Council. An Executive Order of the Governor!

It is not a giant step to anticipate that, as the level of state financial support for school construction increases, a call for greater “accountability” and control will come from state and local politicians and the public and the “guidelines” will become statutory requirements. In this scenario, a discussion of the merits or constraints of ed specs, as we currently define them, becomes an academic exercise.

I think that those of us involved in the planning and design of school buildings should take ten deep breaths and look in a mirror. The position that design problems, such as those listed by our friend in Colorado, are solely the responsibility of the architect does not hold water. (It sounds to me like somebody on the client’s side was not paying attention.) By the same token, I share Mr. Matschulat’s reactions to Bruce Jilk’s condescension that ed spec people get in the way, although they may be capable of making a positive contribution. It is interesting that while criticizing facility planners, Jilk believes that most school architecture is repulsive and blames that on the “ed spec tendency” to deal with a fragmented approach to design. Could it be that some architects find it easier and more profitable to reach into their files for a gym block or a classroom block?

For my part, I believe that architects are becoming overly involved in the planning phase of the school that they will eventually design. I would quote the Design Share Watershed article in which Bill DeJong observes:

“Architects can be very constructive in helping school boards move to an understanding of the importance of school design to learning. But we have to be very careful here. Is the architect telling the client what learning should take place or how students should learn? That should be the client’s job. The architect should be providing design solutions to meet the objectives established by the client.”

I think that Michael Sharp has stated the problem perfectly when he points out the conflict between bureaucratically-imposed constraints, and the needs of the individual school. I also believe that the trend toward increasing regulation is a reality and architects will be forced to respond to educational code requirements just as they do with construction related codes.

My reaction - deal with it.

Educate the client. Make sure you conceptualize what they say they need and then draw the hell out of it.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15