While reviewing a design contract once, a friend mentioned that the “large print giveth and the small print taketh away…” Although a bit of a lawyer joke, the key concept is very true. It is the entire contract that consummates the agreement, not just the aspects that work in your favor. And, the type is usually all the same size, it is just “how we look at it” that seems to make it smaller.

Similarly, this is true for school design. Schematic design, the first phase of the design process, can often set the framework for the entire project and identify all the “wish-list” items desired by the client. Words put labels on spaces so we know they are there and our imagination assures us that all is well, totally understood, etc. etc. It is during the schematic design when the most people are often involved in the process, giving input, and exemplifying “participatory” design.

After schematic design, many people leave the process happy and assured in the knowledge that they have been heard, their needs identified, and the building will be perfect, futuristic, and flexible. There involvement is over…unfortunately.

Whereas it is the Schematic design that “giveth” much, it is during the remainder of Design Development and Construction Document preparation that items thought to be “in the project” (may be) taken away. Nobody is trying to be mean. Everybody wants everything to be possible. But, adjusting design and scope is just part of the process, a process that is ever evaluating, budgeting, estimating, gaining new information, and going through the iterative process again and again and again.

So, what’s the point?

Involve the client in the whole process, from Schematic design right through to construction documents.

“But, that is too time consuming”, you say. “The client doesn’t understand all the details of CD’s. They are no longer interested”.

Well, let’s think about it for a minute.

Design Development and Construction Documents … fretting the small stuff.

It is in the last two phases of design that the details of size, dimension, functionality, and day-to-day performance are established for ever more. It can not, and must not be treated lightly. Yet, more often than not, little or no detailed planning and data collection occurs between the architect and client after Schematics.

It is in these latter two phases of design that some of the best and worst designs have been consummated, resulting in either praise or cursing in the teacher’s lounges for evermore.

Resource Area for Teaming

The photograph below shows a space that was possibility identified during schematic design as a Shared Team Resource Area. It is outside of several classroom entrances and is adjacent to a hallway circulation route. In schematic concept, it is a good idea in theory. It was probably supported by the educational planning staff and the project was off and running.

After visiting this school some years after occupancy, I was struck by several aspects of the actual use that would have been the focus of Phase II & III design.

• Door locations direct traffic directly through the proposed resource space.
• The absence of furniture speaks for itself.
• High ceilings generalized the space, although it was apparently intending to define the work area below.
• No electrical outlets reduce high tech functionality
• Acoustics from adjacent commons may pose distraction problems.

The “resource area” is now operating as an expanded hallway. The square footage area, once identified for instruction has fallen victim to the expanded net-to-gross ratio of circulation space. The adjusted construction cost to educational utilization ratio becomes very noticeable.

Cabinets, Storage, & Technology

Micro level decisions also apply inside the classroom, particularly in high technology areas such as science. Again, decisions during Phase II & III design can be incredibly important to daily operational success.

In the photograph to the right, it appears that there was little coordination between technology equipment size, location of outlets, width of cabinets, and lighting.

The result is less than professional. An “accident” is just waiting to push the screen off the hard drive.

Finally, where does the actual experiment occur?

Where Engineering meets Program Requirements!

One of the reasons that Phase II & III design is so important is that engineering begins to engage the process more specifically within the original design concept. From here on out, the exact location of outlets, plumbing, vent locations, light layouts, fixture selection will take place.

Yet, seldom if ever, will the educational client and certainly the common teacher/planner ever meet the engineering professionals. Knowledge gained through extensive interviews, educational specification preparation, community meetings, seldom reaches the engineers.

The picture to the left summarizes the importance of proper coordination between client and ALL design professionals.

This is a new school, but who would guess?

Phase II design, properly completed and presented to the client, would have provided room arrangements of equipment, sink locations, TV locations, and provided the framework for further discussion of electrical, lighting, and more.

But, in this case, apparently it did not happen.

What to do?

Recognizing the necessity for appropriate client review and involvement in all phases of design is the first step. Some methods and considerations to maximize the process may include:

• Create a legitimate pre-architectural program for the functional requirements inside each major educational space. Keep the focus on the major items that are particularly unique to the program. Special equipment, acoustical concerns, extensive multi-media may help focus the micro design activity.
• Include furniture layouts within the line drawings. This puts function, furniture, and scale into balance. The true utilization will become quickly apparent. Errors will also surface quickly.
• Coordinate the equipment and furniture layouts with the actual catalogue cuts to be purchased. This coordination will avoid purchasing the wrong items for the space.
• Have informed reviews by educational staff. It is not acceptable for ill informed participants to provide tacit approval because of ignorance. Thus, it is necessary to talk through the plans using layman language and point to items where symbols are less familiar.

If district projects are few and far between or the district is particularly small and without planning staff, consider having an outside consultant or team conduct a plan review. This review can include, but not be limited to evaluating:

• Size adequacy
• Functional adjacencies
• Flexibility
• Operational efficiency
• Net to Gross Area
• Security
• Site and Facility Traffic flow
• Value engineering of program and enrollment capacity
• Value engineering of physical structure

A “second set of eyes” can save a lot of time and money before the building is built and occupied. It can also avoid the political hardships that can shake up a district for years and decades into the future if done incorrectly.

A properly assembled review team can ask the right questions, allow informed answers, and reach layman understood conclusions that can make the final occupancy a true pleasure for all concerned.

Franklin Hill & Associates provides district master plans, facility master plans, and educational specifications for new and remodeled buildings for school districts, universities, and corporations. They often work directly with the educational client or as part of an architectural design team. They often review plans over the internet or through design review workshops on site.

Frank has unique qualifications in urban planning, curriculum, and educational facility planning. He was facility planner for the countywide 100,000-pupil Duval School System in Jacksonville, Florida. Frank’s practical experience also includes being a VP for both an architectural and program management firm.

Please send your comments and ideas for future articles to Frank@franklinhill.com or visit his website at Franklinhill.com.