Robert T. Matschulat:
In defense of ed specs
8/30/02

If ed specs, program, technical standards, or whatever we call owner-imposed criteria, are a problem, I respectfully submit that the self-appointed creative geniuses of the design community are an equal problem. I am aghast that Mr. Jilk and Mr. Nair rant not only against ed specs and school bureaucracies, but AIA and CEFPI too! Are we seriously to believe these two individuals have all of the answers?

The “USSR” comment is cute, but is the situation any better when a solitary designer is in charge of ed specs, program, design, details, specification, project management, and ultimate arbitration of what constitutes “success?”

Let me take you on a tour of school buildings in my district where not only ed specs, but codes, staff, students, neighbors, and community were disregarded in the name of “creativity!” Designers have given us 7 foot corridor ceilings, window walled computer labs, windowless art rooms, entire floors without restrooms, 15 fc illumination levels, 9 inch stair risers without handrails, unmaintainable design features, and uncountable variations of non-functional classroom sizes and configurations. I can also show you “award winning” schools that are universally hated by staff, students, and community. Fortunately, we have had adequate resources to be able to extensively remodel many of these failed architectural experiments. Some masterpieces present us with no options but demolition and replacement.

Does the design community honestly perceive these concerns as a “straightjacket?”

Unfortunately, each of these abominations adds at least a sentence to our ed spec or technical standards. Please excuse school districts and our flawed attempts to “get it right the first time.” Mr. Phillips, I wish you much success with your two pages of “generic goals!”

It may be a minor point to some, but school districts have to live with the consequences. We are not in the business of fabricating stage sets! We are building for 40+ years here. During its lifetime, a school must serve scores of distinct parent-student “customer” populations through a dozen different principals and probably an equal number of curriculum concepts. Which group of customers should the building be designed to accommodate? Which staff? Which educational program? Which facility manager? I find it very revealing that both of the original essays by Mr. Jilk and Mr. Nair mention “design awards,” and the “look” of a school. Is the success of a school really determined by appearance? Does anything about the school matter after the design awards are presented?

No man is an island, but as a group, I believe design professionals gravitate toward the isolation end of the collaboration spectrum. Too many designers tend to eschew association with others to pursue their individual “vision.” The idea of the creative individual in the ivory tower or studio loft is an engaging one, but in the discipline of architecture, I submit that we have but a handful of these true geniuses per generation.

Perhaps ed specs should apply only to the mortal designers.

Buckminster Fuller coined the term “synergy” to describe an end result that is more than the sum of its individual parts. Individual growing and learning experiences are an inescapable part of planning, design and construction. Most of these involve pain and misery, so the real synergy comes when others can benefit from what we have learned without having the direct experience. School districts have plenty of pain and misery to share, if anyone in the design community cares to listen. The ed spec is one of the few mechanisms we have to communicate this wealth of experience. Pardon me, but I refuse to apologize for our hard-earned (not to mention costly) “memorialization of good practice.” Do we need to do better? Of course!

Educational facility planners and their ed specs do not have a monopoly on school design excellence, but neither do the designers. We deeply share common objectives. The dispute is about how to best achieve them. I believe the critical issue is less one of creation and more one of collaboration.

Successful school designs require a delicate synergy of many critical variables including visionary educators, engaged communities, adequate budgets, realistic schedules, high quality ed specs, and creative designers such as Mr. Jilk and Mr. Nair.

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