From Enclosure to Partition: School Design and Pedagogy

From Enclosure to Partition Defining School Design on a Pedagogical Basis

From Enclosure to Partition Defining School Design on a Pedagogical Basis Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Taught Master of Philosophy in Architecture and Urban Design Degree

By Seyithan Ozer

Architectural Association School of Architecture London Projective Cities Programme June 2017

Abstract

The dissertation examines the relationships between spatial agencies and pedagogy in schools. Current policies and research reduce the discussion of school design to well-performing buildings in terms of environmental comfort, and to efficient plan layouts. School buildings, resultant of such discussions, are limited in the ways in which schools operate socially and pedagogically. The dissertation aims first to analyse the spatial and pedagogical implications of such quantitative arguments, and later, to rethink the school typologies and the spatial elements of schools with respect to pedagogical statements through an analytical and design dissertation, opening ways for challenging the policies.

While pedagogical statements make explicit the social ideals, they cannot prescribe the patterns of behaviour without being materialised. School buildings, with their formal, organisational, and material systems order these patterns. The quantitative arguments crystallise into equal-sized classroom and double-loaded corridor configurations, and restate the education only as a classroom-based practice without recognising other forms of learning and teaching. The dissertation, analysing the elements that construct the school typologies in pedagogical terms, proposes the partitioning and creation of clusters as a strategy. In doing so, it becomes possible to recognise different teaching and learning methods identified, and at the same time form a coherent whole providing a sense of community.

In addition to the building scale, the dissertation argues the urban scales, in which such quantitative arguments constrain the school projects at most. The dissertation proposes extending the strategy of partitioning to urban scales, and investigates the extent and the ways in which the schools can organise their surroundings and how, in return, the pedagogies and the schools can be thought. The dissertation, therefore, opens up a possibility to challenge the policies and regulations governing school designs, by redefining the enclosures, divisions, connections, densities, and proximities in the form of the classroom, in the form of the schools, and in the form of the city in terms of pedagogical arguments.

Table of Contents

11

Introduction: Defining the Quantitative and Qualitative

23

Building Technologies and School Typology

37

From Enclosure to Partition

66

Design Proposals

93

Urban School

123 Conclusion 127 Bibliography

To my parents, my brother, and my sister for their unconditional support and help.

I would like to thank to my supervisors and tutors, Dr-Ing. Sam Jacoby, Dr. Maria S. Giudici, Dr. Mark Campbell, Dr. Platon Issaias, and Dr. Adrian Lahoud for their continued support in writing the dissertation, and for their mentorship that extends beyond this work.

Furthermore, I would like to thank the Government of the Republic of Turkey, for supporting my studies, Giota Pavlidou from Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Archive, and Bethany J. Antos from the Rockefeller Archive Center for their help in finding the materials.

I also would like to express my gratitude to my friends in Ankara, in London, and in Rome for their support and understanding, and to my colleagues for the good moments in the basement.

11

Introduction Defining the Quantitative and Qualitative

In 2003, the Department of Education and Skills of England announced Building Schools for the Future, a comprehensive capital investment programme to build, rebuild and refurbish all secondary schools, and later primary schools. The initiative invited architects, non-governmental organisations, and pedagogues to think the schools of the 21st century, aiming at educating every child “in a 21st-century environment within 15 years”.1 After long debates, when the programme finally terminated in 2010, two points remained unsatisfactory for a new education and new schools. Firstly, the significant amount of investment in information and communication technologies classified the education of the 21st century towards a technology-deterministic ideal.2 Secondly, along the same line, high-performance building solutions and high-tech architectural expressions defined the architecture of the 21st-century school, with little attention to typologies. (Figure 1.01) Although these two were significant enough, the exceeded budget and schedule requirements, and the insignificant changes in student performances triggered discussions on the performance and the efficiency of the programme.3 With the need for certainty, precision, economy, and efficiency learnt, the Building School for the Future in 2010 was succeeded by the Priority School Building Programme. This time, the government established several mechanisms to control the performance and the efficiency of the program, as well as the ones of the schools planned. Firstly, the program aimed at rebuilding only the primary and secondary schools in the worst 1. “Building Schools for The Future Factsheet”. web.archive.org. Accessed 22 April 2017. https:// web.archive.org/web/20070812122307/http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page5801.asp.

2. House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, Sustainable Schools: Are We Building Schools for The Future? (London: The Stationery Office, 2007).

3. ”School Buildings Scheme Scrapped - BBC News”. BBC News, 2017. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/10514113.

Figure 1.01—Exemplar School Design presented to Prime Minister at the official launch of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF).

Rijke Marsh Morgan Architects (dRMM), 2004. From < http:// drmm.co.uk > [Accessed on 02.05.2017]

Introduction

12

Introduction

condition. Secondly, a school area calculation tool for budget, student and building area values was provided. Moreover, thirdly, architectural baseline designs were provided that present possible solutions within the limitations of school area calculations. Specifications related to these designs were also provided to guarantee well-performing buildings and to provide solutions for the technical problems these plans created.4 By doing so, the assessment criteria and objectives of the project were defined quantitatively.

Therefore,this time, certainty, precision, economy, and efficiency could be measured, calculated, and assessed objectively.

In parallel, building regulations and other statutory documents related to school buildings have become looser in defining minimum standards, and were remodelled as non-statutory guides. 5 Economic building solutions demanded by the Education Funding Agency that administers the school construction programme, give the impression that the certainty and efficiency are calculated based on the initial cost of a school building. 6 Rather than the minimisation of floor area, what must be highlighted is the way this area is distributed, positioned, and organised in these school designs. The baseline designs stand for a certain school typology: equalsized classrooms positioned along a double-loaded corridor. The doubleloaded corridor provides an efficient building solution, as it minimises the number of walls compared to a single-loaded corridor or a central hall configuration. On the other hand, each classroom have the same size and the same relationship with each other and the corridor provides a certain flexibility in scheduling the use and the equal distribution of the classroom floor area. However, a more thorough analysis would reveal that the size of a classroom is not flexible in terms of teaching and seating arrangements.

Neither the corridors with minimum width allow anything but circulation.

(Figure 1.02)

While the proposed classrooms and the corridors are formulated as general and austere solutions, the drawings and the related specifications are detailed to the louvres, skylights, window heights, internal openings, and air ducts. (Figure 1.03) Robin Evans, in his The Projective Cast: Architecture 4. “Priority School Building Programme (PSBP) - GOV.UK”. gov.uk, 2017. https://www. gov.uk/government/collections/priority-school-building-programme-psbp.

5. Compare The School Premises Regulations (England) 2012 and The School Premises Regulations (England) 1998, for the changing regulations.

6. The other documents on cost and area allowances are found in Building Bulletin 103.

13

Figure 1.02—First Floor Plan and Cross Section for a Secondary School for 600 Students, 11-16 Typical Curriculum.

Priority School Building Program, Education Funding Agency.

2015. Redrawn by author based on the drawings from <www. gov.uk> [Accessed 02.05.2017]

14

Introduction

and its Three Geometries (1995) suggests the drawing as a formative tool, rather than a descriptive one.7 Departing from his point, such contrast in the definition of the building enclosure and the interior of the school equate these schools to well-performing buildings. Certainly, if we set aside the hygienist policies that paralleled the emergence of schools, the school design has been about the reestablishment of dimensions and details assessed in terms of daylight and ventilation since the first purpose-built schools. However, in the baseline designs and related specifications, the typical school not only re-establishes new technical solutions that provide environmental comfort and lower energy use but are also legitimised through them, as they make the efficient plan solutions and the doubleloaded corridor configuration to function properly. As the two programmes demonstrate, environmental comfort and technology overtake the issues of school design. For instance, in the academia, the research on the assessment of learning environments mostly focuses on the classroom and school environment by attempting to set up relationships between the values of air quality, the amount of light, temperature, noise, and student outcomes.

8 (Figure 1.04) Thereby, the academia adds to previous equations by equating the student performance to building performance.

7. Robin Evans, The Projective Cast: Architecture And Its Three Geometries, 1st ed. (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000).

8. Barrett, Peter, Yufan Zhang, Fay Davies, and Lucinda Barrett, Clever Classrooms, Holistic Evidence and Design Project (Salford: University of Salford, 2015)

Figure 1.03â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Detailing of Plan and Section.

In addition to the ventilation louvres, the northern facade has larger glazing ratio than the ones in south. Shading devices are placed in southern openings. Classrooms in the second floor have skylights. Exhaust air from the classrooms are directed via ducts along the corridors. Opening in the corridor, allow the light from skylights to disperse to lower floor corridors, and contribute to the ventilation. Priority School Building Program, Baseline Design for a Secondary School for 600 Students, 11-16 Typical Curriculum | Education Funding Agency

15

Introduction

On the other hand, the Royal Institute of British Architects confirmed the excessive attention to mechanical services in recent schools in the United Kingdom. Based on the post-occupancy surveys of 129 schools, the report states that the mechanical systems in recent school buildings (other than the PSBP schools) are usually redundant.9 Although it was written from another perspective, it is helpful to mention Reyner Banham and François Dallegret’s A House is not a Home (1965), to place the technological determinism within a larger architectural debate. Here the title plays with the architectural object (house) and its use and possibility of subject-building (home).10 (Figure 1.05) Since Banham and Dallegret’s early preoccupations of the mechanical systems against the subjective nature of architecture, architecture and the city started to become evaluated quantitatively rather than with their political and historical values. The design of the school is no different from Banham and Dallegret’s proposal, which reduces the house to an enclosure only with a membrane and the mechanical fittings, offering the minimum necessary for comfortable living. Baseline designs offer the most efficient and generic layouts, made possible by technological solutions.

%11 Complexity %12 Color

%21 Natural Light

%12 Temperature

%17 Ownership %11 Flexibility

%16 Air Quality

Figure 1.04—Factors in Classroom Environment Affecting Student Outcomes.

In Barrett, Peter, Yufan Zhang, Fay Davies, and Lucinda Barrett, Clever Classrooms, Holistic Evidence and Design Project (Salford: University of Salford, 2015)

All in all, different stakeholders as academia, building industry, politicians, and architects make this a complete administrative project, with very little attention to the specificities of school architecture. Criteria such as building performance and student performance offer an incontrovertible legitimacy to school design. Indeed, well-performing building criteria provides certain qualities to the functioning of school buildings. However, variations of performances and well-performing enclosures apply to any building. Such approach does not only limit the possibilities of school architecture to enclosures but also replaces it with technical issues of defining outcomes and universal objective assessments to achieve predetermined ends.

Subsequently, the word ‘common’, which is inherent in school as a common aim and interest, comes to characterise the minimum and the generic. The necessity to discuss qualitative values specific to school architecture is still at stake.

Figure 1.05—Baroque Ensemble of Domestic Gadgetry

9. Royal Institute of British Architects, Better Spaces For Learning, #TopMarkSchools (London: Royal Institute of British Architects, 2016), p.21.

10. Banham, Reyner, “A Home is not a House”, Art in America, Volume 2, (1965), pp. 70-79.

Introduction

Schooling The common school emerged at the moment in history when “a normative class conquered the power to identify the function of social norms with its own uses and its own determination of content”.11 In the 19th century, in Europe, a series of policies and techniques were developed aiming at the welfare and control of the population, positioning the state as services and assistance provider, and separating philanthropy from charity as an apolitical actor in helping the welfare provision. These institutions, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, moral and philanthropic propositions (adding into what Michel Foucault defined as apparatus) averted the risks of a destruction of society through the physical and moral weakening of the population.12 Whether philanthropic, by the state, hygienic, or industrial, schooling was a tool in the project of the social.

It transferred not only information and skills required for a productive workforce, but also traditional and moral values that construct identities, common ideals, sensibilities, and approaches. This genealogy, allows us to assert that pedagogy, in the sense of the practice and method of this transfer, and curriculum, the content, together form schooling. In this, one must also note that the use and content of schooling are constantly reinterpreted, adjusted, and negotiated.

Type The school was a place, where the student was constantly measured against the norms derived from the statistics and calculations, and where social concepts, for instance, citizenship, hygiene, and morals were cultivated and spread to the population. In parallel, the interior of the school was a place where the populations were transformed to citizens, delinquents to responsible ones, and unhealthy ones to healthy. While Foucault’s terms make the power relations more explicit, social relations including the ones of pedagogy and curriculum alone cannot prescribe patterns of behaviour without being materialised. School buildings materialise some power relationships; all its formal, organisational, and material systems 11. Georges Canguilhem, The Normal And The Pathological, 1st ed. (New York: Zone Books, 2007).

12. Donzelot, Jacques, The Policing of Families (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979); Foucault, Michel. “The Confession Of The Flesh” (interview). In Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews And Other Writings, 194-228. Colin Gordon, 1st ed. New York, N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1980.

16

Introduction

order patterns, disable some of them and encourage others. In this, similar to Bruno Latour’s keys,but in a larger scale, they “[hold] society together as a durable whole”.13 They materialise and define enclosures, divisions, connections, densities, and proximities in the form of the classroom, in the form of the schools, and in the form of the city. Thus, they negotiate social relations and policies, econometrics, technologies, and by doing so, they redefine the schooling. They operate on multiple scales; they define bodies, groups, hierarchies, neighbourhoods, and nations. Therefore, schools can be thought as diagrams that exist at multiple scales, and that explain certain approaches to and aspects of production of schools, both as objects that encompass formal, organisational, and material systems, and as discourses.

The resolution of these diagrams allows us to understand and think about the possibilities of the agencies of the school architecture in defining the pedagogies.

Building Technologies In repositioning the school architecture on the basis of pedagogy and curriculum, the dissertation does not do away with building technologies. If they are inevitably part of this formal, organisational, and material systems of the school architecture, they also contribute to what schools do. As schools inscribe social relations, negotiate multiple actors, and materialise borders, rather than what these technologies are, how they are used in these processes is important. In the administrators, financiers, and politicians’ pursuit of evaluation, today, technologies provide calculable criteria to school buildings and dominate the other discussions in school design. At the same time, as history shows, building technologies are directly linked with the school design, as they could provide solutions for the constraints of lighting, ventilation, and building and maintenance costs in which the discussion of school design took place.

The qualitative criteria school design is based is the correspondence of the formal, organisational, and material organisation of school building and the imagined social diagrams including the ones of pedagogy and curriculum.

Acknowledging this, the dissertation will revisit the architectural agencies of 13. Bruno Latour’s examples of hotel key and Berlin key, demonstrate the design of an object sugests a set of controlled actions. Latour, Bruno. “Technology Is Society Made Durable”. The Sociological Review 38, no. (1990): 103-131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990.tb03350.x.; Latour, Bruno. “The Berlin Key Or How To Do Things With Words”. In Materiality And Modern Culture, 10-21. P.M. Graves-Brown, 1st ed. London: Routledge, 1991.

17

Introduction

schools that embody the curriculum and pedagogy within them, and at the same time, form a complementary pedagogy and curriculum.

The dissertation will systematically go through an architectural history. It is not to trace a history of causal relationships that define a teleology. Rather, it is to analyse several school projects, where architects deployed different means and aimed at different pedagogical, social, economic ends. In resolving these diagrams, the aim is to understand the formation of school types and the relationships between pedagogy and school building. In other words, it is to argue what the architectural agencies of pedagogy are, and how they contribute to the formation of social relationships including the ones of pedagogies and curricula.

Case studies are selected to present as much formal, organisational, and material systems that reflect in one way or another certain pedagogies, and that can be grouped to compare. Most of the case studies are selected from archival findings. In this, the dissertation brings out primary resources on most of which, a secondary source is not available. The case studies that are analysed more in detail can be grouped in two historical periods, early 20th century modernism, and architecture after the World War II. Therefore, they unfold into the ruptures in the history of architecture in both in building techniques and in social concerns. This diagrammatic resolution will go along not only with the reinterpretations of the aims and meanings of schooling but also with other material systems incorporated within the school design. While the former encompasses well-known tendencies of standardisation, rationalisation, nation-building, and hygiene, the latter encompass a heterogeneity of both tools, and discourses, hence different interpretations of scales and parts of school buildings. Such analysis, then, will aim at understanding the architectural agencies that construct the enclosures, divisions, connections, densities, and proximities, not only through the scale of the school, but also extending in the technologies, regulations, policies, economics, and the city. Therefore, in parallel, different actors in school design and the city become visible. States of different models, philanthropist organizations, corporations, industry, academia.

Indeed, primary case studies of the dissertation are philanthropy-funded school projects working together with the academia, industry, state, and community. Analysing each project within its own socio-political, economic, and pedagogical context, allow us to draw comparisons that renders the knowledge embedded in these projects and their relationships to different actors clearer.

18

Introduction

The analysis of case studies combine into a set of elements and scales each instance of which, cannot be covered within this work. The design projects complete the matrices of elements and scales, demonstrating and testing what the written part argues. In this context, the first chapter analyses and discusses the ways in which, building techniques affiliate to pedagogies. What connects them to each other, and through what they are mediated within the school are the typologies. This resolution allows us to direct the high-performance enclosures from a technological-determinist discussion to what they enclose and how do they contribute to it. The second chapter, then, discusses the corridor and classroom configurations that are mainstream in school design within a history. A further analysis of the experimental school designs in the last century in relation to different pedagogies reveals that not only the classroomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s size, program, and furniture, and the corridor, but also the borders that separate them can be the architectural agencies of pedagogies. Building techniques, typologies, and these configurations together render the economic, technical, and social forces on school design more legible. Following these, the dissertation proposes these agencies as a strategy to revise and rethink the school between the financial, technical, and social forces. It suggests a series of classroom designs, that reinterprets these agencies intending to provide different teaching methods to co-exist in a dynamic configuration, without losing the specificities of the teaching methods. The third chapter focuses on the school in the urban contexts, tracing the same forces behind school planning and the possibilities of the relationships that the schools can establish with the city. At the end of the chapter, the dissertation proposes urban school typologies, that aim to negotiate the economic, and physical forces with the specifities of the school design developed.

19

23

2 Building Technologies and School Typology

Objectivity that administrators, financiers, and politicians establish with building technologies, promises to claim architecture as a calculable object.

It, thereby, comes to be legitimised with its performance understood as the quantities of energy efficiency, environmental comfort, or financial return.

Technology, in this case, replaces the reason of architecture, rather than governing its construction rationally. In parallel, technology “acquires a kind of objectivity and independence from human agency.”1 In the trajectory to posit school architecture as a practice that mediates social relations including the ones of pedagogies and curricula, the dissertation will firstly consider the role building technologies play within these relationships. This consideration is inevitable because of two reasons. First, the environmental comfort that schools should provide has been considered carefully in the discussion of school architecture. In addition to environmental comfort, the economy of school building has been an important consideration, since schools are usually built as part of larger infrastructural projects sponsored by the state. As will be seen in more detail, technologies provide solutions for meeting both economic constraints and the environmental comfort.

Second, the current situation undermines not only the possibilities of a school based on social ideas but also the opportunities that the building technologies can provide for it. Moreover, new building technologies often used primarily in public buildings, in order to promote new forms, appearances, and even social ideas. Yet, it cannot be stated that pedagogies are technologically determined. Neither are they inconsequential. There is a need to identify the relationships that building technologies form in the making of the school, through which subjects are formed and governed.

This chapter aims to analyse two projects which were explicit in their use of 1. Ingold, Tim. “Tools, Minds And Machines: An Excursion In The Philosophy Of Technology”.

In The Perception Of The Environment: Essays On Livelihood, Dwelling And Skill, 294-311. Tim Ingold, 1st ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2000.

24

Building Technologies and School Typology

technology. In both cases, the use of technology allowed establishing specific social and pedagogical ideas within their physical and economic constraints.

In the first example, it allowed compensating the physical limitations, whereas, in the second, it allowed the otherwise challenging arrangements to become real.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the sanitary reforms, which began in the mid-19th century with the initiative of the state, were already replaced by the education of personal hygiene, and protection of health, extending from bodily hygiene to design of buildings, and to activities.2 In addition to the physical education drills and hygiene classes in schools, diets, postures, and movements of children became a concern for pedagogues, physicians, and administrators, as in Maria Montessori’s pedagogy.3 At the same time, school buildings aimed at inscribing these hygienist forces to the building form. Besides the open-air schools, the general architectural tendency for school buildings of the modern architecture at the beginning of the 20th century was to create schools offering good exposure to air and light, and accessibility to green outdoor areas. These aspirations combined into a new school typology providing well-ventilated and well-lit classrooms, one of which is the Friedrich-Ebert Schule (1930) by Ernst May.(Figure 2.01) Exhibited as part of the International Style Exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in 1932, the school represented the school architecture of Modernism.4 In the school, the classrooms were positioned along the southern side of the corridors, and they gave direct access to individual outdoor areas as large as the classrooms themselves.

A similar ambition can also be found in the Petersschule, Hannes Meyer and Hans Wittwer submitted for a girls’ school competition at the historic centre of Basel, Switzerland, in 1926. In the Petersschule, the aim of “experienced knowledge”, “body health”, and “viable youth” derived from such hygienist attitudes, was to be attributed to building technologies

2. Adrian Forty, Objects Of Desire, 1st ed. (London: Thames and Hudson, 2000),159-160.

3. Maria Montessori and Gerald Lee Gutek, The Montessori Method, 1st ed. (Lanham. Md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 75.

4. Museum of Modern Art. Exclusive For New York Times Educational Page, 1932. https://www. moma.org/d/c/press_releases/W1siZiIsIjMyNDk2MiJdXQ.pdf?sha=c23412e75c98eb79.

Figure 2.01—Plan of the Friedrich-Ebert Schule.

Ernst May, 1930, Frankfurt, Germany.

25

Building Technologies and School Typology

and daylight calculations, aiming at creating an objective building. 5 For instance, the quest to have one square meter of open space for each of the 580 students, resulted in leaving more than half of the plot empty on the ground floor. 6 The school, then, was conceived as a block of services and a block of classrooms aligned to the western limit of the plot. Rising for four floors above the ground floor housing the common areas, the building was exposed to good air and sunlight at a distance from the ground floor of the old city centre. The dimensions of the classrooms and their openings were calculated in relation to daylight, taking advantage of the good air and sunlight above the street level.7 (Figure 2.03) Still, the plans of these floors tell little about how “experienced knowledge”, “body health”, or “viable youth” is achieved. They do not demonstrate any difference in the configuration of the classrooms, halls, and open areas than the other plans that were submitted to the competition.8 (Figure 2.04) These aims were achieved by two platforms projecting from the first and the second floors of the school block, covering the plaza on the ground level. They are supported by truss-beams projecting from the building and are suspended from cables connected to the roof of the classroom block.

The calculations were deployed not only for classrooms. The two platforms were placed at a distance from the school block, and at a distance from each 5. Hannes Meyer and Hans Wittwer,“Erlaeuterung zum Schulhaus von Heute”, project statetment accompanied with competititon entry. An image of the original document is available in In Hannes Meyer 1889-1954: Architekt Urbanist Lehrer, 80. Bauhaus-Archiv, Berlin, und Deutsches Architekturmuseum, Frankfurt am Main, in Verbindung mit dem Institut fur Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur an der ETH Zürich, 1st ed. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn Verlag, 1989.

6. “Erlaeuterung zum Schulhaus von Heute” 7. Meyer, Hannes, and Hans Wittwer. “Die Petersschule Basel”. Bauhaus: Zeitschrift Fuer Bau Und Gestaltung, 1928. (Facsimile published by Bauhaus-Archiv,Berlin. Available via British Library) 8. The other entries to the competition can be found in: A.V. Blom, “Richtlinien Für Die Herstellung Von Rostschutz- Anstrichen”, Schweizerische Bauzeitung 8990, no. 14 (1927): 183-185.

Figure 2.02—Model of the Petersschule as Submitted to the Competition.

Hannes Meyer and Hans Wittwer. 1926, Basel, Switzerland. In Wittwer, Hans Jakob. “Überlegungen Zur Petersschule In Basel”.

In Hannes Meyer 1889-1954: Architekt Urbanist Lehrer, 86.

26

Building Technologies and School Typology

Figure 2.03—Plan and Section of Petersschule Competition Entry.

Hannes Meyer and Hans Wittwer. 1926, Basel, Switzerland.

Redrawn by author based on the plans and sections in Wittwer, Hans Jakob. “Überlegungen Zur Petersschule In Basel”. In Hannes Meyer 1889-1954: Architekt Urbanist Lehrer, 80.

Bauhaus-Archiv, Berlin, und Deutsches Architekturmuseum, Frankfurt am Main, in Verbindung mit dem Institut fur Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur an der ETH Zürich, 1st ed. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn Verlag, 1989., and aerial-photographs from “19330980050737”. BW Aerial Photograph. Wabern, 1933.

Aerial Images swisstopo b/w. Federal Office of Topography swisstopo.

Building Technologies and School Typology

27

other ruled by an angle allowing the sunlight to permeate to the ground and first floor of the school, as well as to the plaza. These open-air platforms for students to play at the first and second levels, the terrace on the third floor and the rooftop provides easy access to outdoor areas from all classrooms.

Therefore, it can be asserted that the building used the two strategies to achieve its goals regarding pedagogy: suspended platforms to maximise the students’ contact with each other and to open air, and to provide them outdoor learning and play areas, and daylight calculations to maximise the sunlight inside the building, providing a sanitary condition.

The Petersschule unequivocally aspired to become the objective statement that Meyer has formulated as “function times cost” where cost refers to the mass-production production of architectural objects, hence an economical and aesthetic concern. The function, on the other hand, refers to the technicality of occupation.9 This technicality, derives from a social agenda, aiming at producing a new subjectivity, the modern, healthy citizen. The difference of the project from the other submissions to the competition is the acknowledgement of the limitations of the city form, where neither the plot size allowed the design of a single-storey school with open areas, nor the high buildings surrounding the plot allowed a favourable exposure to the sun. A school like the Friedrich Ebert Schule could only be constructed with the help of the technological possibilities. Petersschule is a stacked version of many modernist schools built on a single-floor, whose classrooms also are well-lit and well-ventilated and give immediate access to the outdoors. Thus, the sophisticated structure that carries the suspended platforms, and the elaborate light calculations became the program of the building. Building techniques used in Petersschule allowed materialising its aims within physical limitations so that its interiors and outdoor could shape and impose activities to achieve predictable results.

Technologies can also precipitate new pedagogies. Architects, engineers, administrators, and statisticians’ aspiration to provide well-lit, and wellventilated school buildings, in the 1950s and 60s, in the United States, met with new technologies. Building technologies and construction materials that were advanced during the wartime in heavy industries, became available for wider use in the civic construction after the war, determining the field of construction and architecture. At this moment in time, architects, who have been testing for better ventilation, better lighting, 9. Hannes Meyer, “Building”, in Programs And Manifestoes On 20Th-Century Architecture, 1st ed. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971), 117-120.

Figure 2.04—Plan and Section of the Winning Entry for Petersschule Competition.

Hans Maehly. 1926-1929, Basel, Switzerland. In “Petersschule in Basel, Geplant 1926, Erbaut 1928/29”. Das Werk : Architektur Und Kunst = L’oeuvre : Architecture Et Art 16, no. 11 (1929): 325.

28

Building Technologies and School Typology

Figure 2.05—Schools of Skylights: Hillsdale Has Windowless Classrooms

In “School Of Skylights: Hillsdale Has Windowless Classrooms”.

Life Magazine, 1957.

designing more ergonomic desks and searching for different dimensions, dispositions, and typologies for school buildings, immediately adopted these technologies. As will be seen in more detail, completely sealed and controlled interiors made possible by air conditioning, new materials and new lighting challenged the school typologies that were developed upon their natural provision. Once these typologies were challenged, it led to the emergence of a new pedagogy. The technical systems, typology, pedagogy, then, worked together in the subject building.

In an issue of Life Magazine in 1957, an article titled ‘School of Skylights’ appeared. (Figure 2.05) In the pages of the magazine, the gridded pattern of the skylights on the roof of Hillsdale High School in San Mateo, California (1955), indicated the non-existent spatial hierarchy and the controlled homogeneity of the interior.10 Hillsdale High School was one of the first schools that were built with technologies and materials advanced by the wartime industry of the United States. It was made of a steel frame structure, prefabricated non-loadbearing walls, air-conditioning system, and skylights.

(Figure 2.06) This system allowed the building to have a vast interior, where 10.“School of Skylights”, Life Magazine, 18 Nov 1957, pp.118-119.

Figure 2.06—Skylight System Section of Hillsdale High School.

John Lyon Reid and Partners. 1950, San Mateo, California.

Redrawn by author from Evans, Clinchy. Profiles Of Significant Schools: Hillsdale High School, San Mateo, California. 1st ed.

New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1960, 6.

29

Building Technologies and School Typology

the artificial and natural light was distributed evenly and air-conditioning systems provided adequate ventilation. Moreover, non-loadbearing walls allowed short-term changes in the interior. However, despite the changes in the building massing and the possibilities of new arrangements allowed by the new building systems, the plan of Hillsdale High School was conventionally divided into classrooms arranged along corridors. 11 This school of private initiative was taken on by the Ford Foundation, a philanthropist organisation, who spent a large amount of its resources for educational facilities. Although their educational agendas reach further, as will be seen in Chapter 4, the main focus of the Foundation in the United States was the shortage of school buildings and teachers resulting from the baby-boom after the Second World War. The Ford Foundation formed a bridge between the academia, state, and industry for the formulation a new kind of education. In 1959, a research team at the University of Illinois directed by J. Lloyd Trump and supported by the Ford Foundation and the Fund for the Advancement of Education developed a comprehensive curriculum and pedagogy published as Images of the Future: A New Approach to Secondary Education.12 Aiming at providing a feasible solution to the lack of the number of teachers to instruct the students increasing in number following the increasing birth rate after the Second World War, the team proposed the reorganisation of instruction in different groupings than the conventional equal sized groups divided to grades. Known as the Trump Plan, the book suggested the reorganisation of instruction and learning in individual studies, small groups (12-15 students), and large groups (100+ students), ‘to provide for the individual differences of the students and to determine which learning experiences are the most significant for the success of the individual’.13 (Figure 2.07) Besides prioritising individual studies, it also suggested the use of educational technologies such as recorded instruction videos for large groups, to compensate the lack of teachers. Teachers were organised in groups to teach the part of the subject, in which they were specialised. (Figure 2.08) 11. A more detailed account of Hillsdale High School can be found in Trump, J. Lloyd, Images of The Future: A New Approach to The Secondary Education (Washington, D.C.: Commission on the Experimental Study of the Utilization of the Staff in the Secondary School, National Education Association, 1959).

12.Trump, J. Lloyd. Images Of The Future: A New Approach To The Secondary School. 1st ed.

Washington, D.C.: Commission on the Experimental Study of the Utilization of the Staff in the Secondary School, National Education Association, 1959.

13. Images Of The Future, 5.

Figure 2.07— Team Teaching.

In Trump, J. Lloyd, and Dorsey Baynham. Focus On Change. 1st ed. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1961.

30

Building Technologies and School Typology

Figure 2.08â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Diagram Showing the Organization of Instruction in Trump Plan.

In Educational Facilities Labs, Inc. New Schools For New Education: A Report From Ann Arbor. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1960.

The Trump Plan was clearly an answer to the possibilities that the new school typologies made possible by the use of new building technologies in school construction. Large massing of schol buildings together with new movable wall systems allowed different sizes of classrooms to exist together efficiently and flexibly. Five years after its opening, the internal organisation of Hillsdale High School was transformed together with other hundreds of schools, adopting this new pedagogical and curricular organisation.14 (Figure 2.09) The new plan of Hillsdale High School, accordingly, was a literal translation of the pedagogy and curriculum that was formulated. It was conceived of two academic wings with individual study areas at their centre, where carrels, resource materials and furniture for individual study were placed. While large-group rooms and specialised classrooms were placed in one wing, the small-group rooms were placed in the other wing. The distribution of small and large rooms and individual studies to two wings respected the calculation of use that was formulated as 40% of large group instruction, 40% of individual study, and %20 seminars.

The Educational Facilities Laboratories, founded by the Ford Foundation was going to launch another research in standardising and expanding the construction system that was used in the construction of Hillsdale High School and others. The aim was to provide a means of relieving the immediate and large amount of need for new schools all around the country economically. Together with the architects of major firms, academics from 14. Hillsdale High School, San Mateo, California, 14. The other schools can be found in: Educational Facilities Labs, Inc. New Schools For New Education: A Report From Ann Arbor.

New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1960, 34-54.

31

Building Technologies and School Typology

1

2

3

Figure 2.09â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Transformation of Hillsdale High Schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Plan.

1. Plan of Hillsdale High School as built in in 1955. Redrawn by author from Evans, Clinchy. Profiles Of Significant Schools: Hillsdale High School, San Mateo, California. 1st ed. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1960, 14.

2. Application of the Trump Plan in Hillsdale High School.

3. Classroom Types in Hillsdale High School.

32

Building Technologies and School Typology

the construction faculties of universities, and large industrial manufacturers the Educational Facilies Laboratories of the Ford Foundation developed the School Construction System Development (1962-1967). Analysing prefabricated school construction systems in the United Kingdom, the new construction system of the United States was going to be made differently than its predecessor.15Firstly, the system was going to be made flexible allowing immediate changes of the interior supporting educational experiments and different scheduling of uses. Secondly, it was going to be adjustable and expandable to eliminate the need to rebuild the schools after some time for different pedagogies and different student numbers.

Moreover, thirdly, it was going to be made functional incorporating different artificial environment control systems to have the economic, physical, and educational advantages that Hillsdale High School and others have demonstrated. The School Construction System Development was, thus, a system of standardised and prefabricated construction components of a sandwich roof incorporating heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, lighting subsystems, operable and movable partition systems, and built-in furniture

15. The exchanges between the school construction programs of the United Kingdom and the Ford Foundation can be found in: Stanford University School Planning Laboratory, British Prefabricated School Construction, 1st ed. (Palo Alto, California: School Planning Laboratory, Stanford University, 1962); Department of Education and Science Architects and Building Branch, USA Visit (London: The Department of Education and Science, 1970).

Figure 2.10â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Sandwich Roof Systems Detail.

In Building Centre Trust. SCSD(School Construction Systems Development): Development Of System Building Components

By Performance Specifications In The USA. Building Centre Intelligence Reports. London: Building Centre Trust, 1970.

33

Building Technologies and School Typology

designs.16 (Figure 2.10) All subsystems were distributed on a grid respecting the dimensions of the Trump Plan.17 For instance, different lighting options, furniture, and wall types were provided to meet the different needs of the different classroom sizes.18 (Figure 2.11) Both examples show us that pedagogies and building technologies are mediated through school typologies. The possibility of making a five-floor modernist school building in Petersschule was with the help of platforms supported by an elaborate structure, and daylight calculations. New building technologies, which could provide large interiors and eliminate the constraints of lighting and ventilation challenged the modernist school typologies and made possible different sizes of classrooms to exist without any engineering and cost limitations.

Still, pedagogies are not technologically determined. However, school design focusing on the environmental comfort and building economy, deploying different technological systems to meet them, and trying different building morphologies and dimensions, in each instance, also affected the pedagogies. Technologies and enclosure systems not only provide a framework for the qualitative evaluation of school buildings in terms of their performance in providing environmental comfort and building economy, but also have qualitative implications in terms of pedagogy.

What the Ford Foundation projects adds to this is that the indirect relationship between technologies and pedagogy can be used as an agency for conditioning certain pedagogies. The physical and economic advantages of the School Construction System Development allowed this pedagogy to be disseminated all over the country. Although the system consisted of construction elements that can be assembled in many different forms, the inscription of the Trump Plan dimensions in these elements, provided the pedagogy to be disseminated all over the country. Despite the fact that the interior and the pedagogy was reinterpreted in each new school, the fundamental principles of the Trump Plan remained. For instance, the School Construction System was used in 1967 for the competition entry for Newport High School in the United Kingdom by Norman Foster, claiming 16. Educational Facilities Laboratories. SCSD: The Project And The Schools. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1967.

17. Boice, John R. A History And Evaluation Of The School Construction Systems Development Project, 1961-1967. 1st ed. Menlo Park, California: Building Systems Information Clearinghouse, Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1971.

18. Educational Facilities Laboratories. SCSD: The Project And The Schools, 1967.

Figure 2.11â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Performance Specifications of School Construction System Development.

In Educational Facilities Laboratories. SCSD: The Project And The Schools. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1967.

Building Technologies and School Typology

similar pedagogical arguments around openness and individual studies.19 Acknowledging the relationships of technologies with building typology and pedagogies, it can be asserted that the detailed construction details of the Priority School Building Programme actually point towards the double-loaded corridor and equal-sized classroom typology. They make this typology to function despite the physical problems of circulation and of environmental comfort it creates. Then, what is the significance of tis configuration? Therefore, a more in-depth analysis of this school typology, and the elements that form it -classrooms and corridor- is necessary to establish the relationships between school typology and pedagogy, and consequently to define the school architecture as a practice that actively mediates pedagogies and the imagined social relationships.

19.â&#x20AC;&#x153;Newport Schoolâ&#x20AC;?, Fosterandpartners.com <http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/ newport-school/> [accessed 15 July 2016].

34

35

3 From Enclosure to Partition

On the contrary of the attention paid to systems that enclose schools and what they protect and seal, the interiors of most of the schools did not demonstrate a notable change over the last century in terms of their organisation. Financiers, administrators, and politiciansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; aim in maximising the capacity of use, and at the same time reducing the costs of the building appears to be the main drive for repeating the corridor and classroom typology, not only because of the construction economy it provides, but also because of the fact that this typology has functioned for long, hence less risk. But, what are the pedagogical and social intentions of the persistence of this typology?

The Ford Foundationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s educational projects in the United States incorporates a series of scales (which is to be completed in the following chapters) from construction elements to a pedagogy, culminating into a new type of school.

As mentioned, in this project of a new type of education created by a series of actors -pedagogues, architects, industry, academics, and philanthropy-, the qualitative models as pedagogy, and the quantitative models as the construction system and the enclosure intertwine indistinguishably as the latter was developed upon the former. This model has more to offer in understanding the relationship of typologies to pedagogies. The aim of this chapter is to go through the interior of the school building, where enclosures, divisions, connections, densities, and proximities inscribe certain patterns that handle the students and transform them.

Different grouping of students in the Trump Plan has demonstrated that the classroom size itself is a major aspect of the pedagogy and the school building. In parallel to the prioritization of individual studies in the projects supported by the Ford Foundation, and the consequent dissolution of the classroom, furniture designs assumed a significant role. This is evident in the design schemes presented by architects in a workshop at the University

36

From Enclosure to Partition

of Michigan, in 1959, organized by Educational Facilities Laboratories of the Ford Foundation for architects to respond architecturally to the Trump Plan.1 Q-Space (“Q” for the quest), prepared by Charles Bill Brubaker of Perkins and Will, celebrated the ‘diversity and individuality’ in these large school interiors. The design suggested a cubicle-like workspace equipped with a TV for each student, liberating the student from subjugation to the group, typical of the conventional model of schooling. This furniture and its spatial configuration created “an environment for individual growth”.2 The students could focus individually and direct themselves, could customise their learning and workspace, express themselves openly within the undivided space, follow and be followed by other students and teachers.

Certainly, these projects supported by the Ford Foundation, displaced the mechanistic model of schooling, a conventional classroom with a single teacher, where the teacher supervises the students. And, it was a move to an organisational model, where the students and teachers were not in predefined groups, but in ever changing arrangements of various sizes, and where the students are empowered using their own intuition, creativity, and diversity. In this spatial arrangement, each student, who was made responsible for their education in such a curricular organisation, could follow their own pace, could interact, compete, and control each other’s behaviours without any grade, skill, or age division. As such, the imagined subject was organizationally embodied within the school: thoroughly individuated, yet equally standardised and controlled.

It has been shown that, the projects resulted from a complex of industry, 1. Projects presented in this worskhop can be found in ducational Facilities Labs, Inc. New Schools For New Education: A Report From Ann Arbor. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1960.

2. New Schools For New Education, 14-15.

Figure 3.01—Q-Space (“Q” for quest).

Charles Bill Brubaker. 1964. In Educational Facilities Labs, Inc. New Schools For New Education: A Report From Ann Arbor.

New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1960.

37

From Enclosure to Partition

academia, architects, pedagogues, administrators, and philanthropist bodies in the United States, reduced the duties of teachers and the cost (Figure 2.09) and maximised the performance of students by placing them in a particular setting, thus resituating the school in a larger organisational and socioeconomic context. Schools, as instruments in long-term social projects, cannot be thought separately from the definitions of the citizenship and the workforce. The similarities between the transformation of schools and work environments at the time in the United States, can be drawn by examining Action Office (1964-1968) designed by Bob Probst and George Nelson, and the controlled interiors of office towers designed in the 1950s and 1960s in New York. 3 Indeed, some of the protagonists of the design of such offices, designed schools, as will be analysed later in the context of the urban and social problems of the United States in the 1960s.

Equal-sized classrooms have still a dominance in contemporary school designs. While the number of students per class reduced in the last two centuries from a number above hundred in a Lancasterian layout in the 19th century to an average of thirty as in the Priority School Building Programme schools, the definitions of group and classroom sizes are still based on the equal distribution. Certainly, the equal distribution of group sizes and classroom sizes provide a flexibility in the use, both in short-term and in long-term. However, a closer analysis of the relationship between the classroom size and the group size may reveal other aspects of the education. For instance, a comparison of the classroom sizes defined for the Priority School Building Programme to the minimum dimensions of different seating arrangements and the minimum dimensions of the nature of the classroom work (sitting and listening, sitting and standing, sitting 3.For instance, the office interior in Union Carbide Building (1960) by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is comparable to the interior of Hillsdale High School.

Figure 3.02â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Cost comparison of Trump Plan to Existing Instruction.

In Trump, J. Lloyd. Images Of The Future: A New Approach To The Secondary School. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: Commission on the Experimental Study of the Utilization of the Staff in the Secondary School, National Education Association, 1959.

Figure 3.03â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Action Office Bob Probst, George Nelson, 1964-1968. Herman Miller Inc.

From Enclosure to Partition

38

individually, sitting in groups) reveals that the classroom size does not allow many possibilities other than frontal teaching.

On the other hand, wide use of corridor configurations in the school building coincides with the emergence of modern architecture.

Therefore, almost archetypical configurations of school interiors can be traced genealogically in maximizing their capacity of use, in complete programming of rooms, and in easily distributing the flow of people and mechanical systems throughout the building.

The issue of corridor had much attention in the writing of architectural history and criticism. The most prominent critique of the corridor came from Robin Evans. Focusing on the domestic interiors, in Figures, Doors and Passages (1978), he argues that the configuration of circulation through corridors was instrumental in the transformation of the society along with the values of privacy and social segregation.4 He posits a matrix of rooms against the corridor configuration as a starting point in the production of “an architecture arising out of the deep fascination that draws people towards others; an architecture that recognizes passion, carnality and sociality.”5 However, more recently, Mark Jarzombek, criticised Evans’ thoughts by focusing on the use of corridors in public buildings and modern building genres. He drew another history of corridors, in Corridor Spaces (2010), from their appearance in the history of architecture up to day, associating it with the social ideas of modernity as hygiene, industrialisation, and the corporatisation of life.6 According to him, corridor should be rethought to re-establish the public that it represented from the 17th century onwards, along with the critique of the different modes of 4. Robin Evans, “Figures, Doors and Passages,” Architectural Design 48, no. 4 (1978): 267-278.

5.Figures, Doors and Passages, 277.

6. Mark Jarzombek, “Corridor Spaces,” Critical Inquiry 36, no. 4 (Summer 2010): 728-770.

Figure 3.04—Assemblies in the Hall “Crawford Street School: drill in the hall”, “Crawford Street School: School Assembly In Hall”, Photograph B&W (London, 1906), LCC Photograph Library London Metropolitan Archives, Collage The London Picture Archive.

39

From Enclosure to Partition

1

â&#x20AC;&#x153;belonging, enforcement, monitoring and surveillanceâ&#x20AC;? it embodies.7 One praises the use of corridors for an architecture that allows social interactions and meanings to be established, whereas the other one blames the corridor for the loss of it. Then, there is a necessity to extend the analysis of corridors, focusing on corridor and classroom configurations in schools.

Classrooms built around central halls or courtyards were the mainstream school layouts before the late 19th century. They provided places, where students gathered and be part of mass-activities such as physical education drills, celebrations, assemblies. As the school projects referred to in the Final Report of the School Board for London 1870-1904 would demonstrate, the drive from the central hall typologies to corridor plans were received with doubt. Because, they did not provide rooms for mass practices.8 In the mid- 19th century several schools negotiated the institutional character of schools, which was built upon rituals that took place in the central hall such as drills and assemblies, and the efficiency and economy of school construction that demanded the replacement of the central halls with narrow corridors. They did so by widening the corridors. They became places, where students marched up and down, hence marching corridors.

The corridor arrangement, while maximizing the use and reducing the costs, it also brings about issues of light and ventilation Therefore, it can be asserted that the corridor is where the technological, social, and economical forces of modernity are come into conflict. Corridors provide economic means of construction, whereas they require solutions for light and ventilation, and constrain assemblies and mass activities to circulation. The history of school architecture in the last century deployed several strategies 7. Corridor Spaces, 770.

8. School Board for London, Final Report Of The School Board For London 1870-1904 (London: P.S King and Son, 1904).

2

3

Figure 3.05â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Corridor, Marching Corridor, and Central Hall Typologies.

1. Compton Street School(1881), 2. Bath Street School (1881), and 3. St. Johns Road School (1883). Redrawn from The School Board for London. Final Report Of The School Board For London 1870-1904. London: P.S King and Son, 1904.

From Enclosure to Partition

to mediate these conflicts: creating bays and openings between classrooms, designing single-loaded corridors where it was applicable, used artificial lighting and ventilation systems throughout the corridors – as in the schools of England. More drastic spatial configurations were converting the corridors into a series of staircases connecting classrooms directly to central halls, and demolishing all the interior partitions in favour of ‘open plans’.

40

Figure 3.06—Ground and First Floor Plans of the Hunstanton Secondary Modern School.

In Philip Johnson, “School At Hunstanton, Norfolk, By Alison And Peter Smithson”, Architectural Review, 1954.

In Hunstanton Secondary Modern School, designed by Alison and Peter Smithson, and built in 1954, the light and ventilation of classrooms were exaggerated by making each classroom have two facades. This required the elimination of the corridors. Architects provided staircases for every two classrooms from the ground floor upwards, where a main hall, courtyards and services were placed. This solution integrating the central hall and courtyard typologies and eliminating the corridors, mediated the idea of school community with the modernist aspirations of light and ventilation.

On the other hand, open plan schools dissolved the classrooms and corridors into large controlled spaces and sealed enclosures following a technological-determinacy. While the Trump Plan, mentioned previously, provided a pedagogical and curricular basis for secondary schools, another discussion that took place at the time was schools without partition walls in elementary schools. For instance, in Granada Community School (1964), built as an artificially controlled environment, the units were composed of five hexagonal classrooms, merged together without walls.9 It was premised upon the possibility to eliminate the floor areas required for circulation, and integrate different age groups and learning methods within a single room.

However, despite the economic advantages the schools without walls

9. “Three Schools Boldly Adapt To Different New Teaching Methods Being Tried Across The Nation”. Architectural Record, 1968.

Figure 3.07—Typical Classroom of the Hunstanton Secondary Modern School.

Reginald Hugo de Burgh Galwey, “Secondary Modern School, Hunstanton: A Typical Teaching Space”, Photograph B&W (London, 1954), RIBA Collections, RIBA Collections.

41

From Enclosure to Partition

provided, they could not displace the corridor typology. Today the conventional schools continue to repeat the corridor and classroom typology. Certainly, economic and administrative forces play decisive roles in the design of schools as the previous examples have shown. In this historical arc, the economic, social, and physical forces all point towards the corridor. It provided an answer to the economic constraints, it maximised the efficiency of the building, it rationalized the flow of people.

Moreover, this persistence brought along new meanings as in the marching corridors of the 19th century, or in the entrepreneurial corridors of some contemporary schools by attaching to changing social ideals.

Figure 3.08—Classroom Plan and Site Plan of Granada Community School.

Callister Rosse. 1964, Corte Madera, California. Redrawn by author from “Three Schools Boldly Adapt To Different New Teaching Methods Being Tried Across The Nation”.

Architectural Record, 1968.

However, the persistence of the corridor despite the economic advantages the schools without walls provided points towards other factors that define the school architecture. It is a sign that the social ideals of modernity win over its technological determination, as the schools without walls could not register precisely the divisions, connections, and densities that are drawn by the pedagogical statements.

School architecture materializes pedagogical statements to achieve predictable results; they allow certain actions, while disabling others by defining the borders imagined through the pedagogies.

In short, the persistence of the corridor stands as a symptom of the need for defining the borders, in the most economically efficient configuration.

Today, architects seek for alternatives to the corridor layout by appropriating marching corridors and school without partition walls along the same lines with new office buildings designed with informal settings. The corridor persists despite the fact that it could never been fully incorporated to school buildings, as it always left the understanding of school community outside the definition of the classroom. Then the question at stake is, how can the need for defining the borders in relation to the pedagogies be mediated with

Figure 3.09—Interior of a Pod in Granada Community School.

School Construction Systems Development, 1965, Ford Foundation records, Photographs, Series 3: General, Program, and Project Photographs, Subseries 3_3:Education and Research (E&R), Box 80, Folder 1314, Rockefeller Archive Center.

From Enclosure to Partition

42

Crow Island School. 1940, Perkins, Will &Wheeler, E.& E. Saarinen.

Figure 3.10— Activity Area.

Thomas Müller and Romana Schneider, The Classroom: From The Late 19Th Century Until The Present Day, 1st ed. (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 2010) Figure 3.11—Main Teaching Area.

“Crow Island School In Winnetka”, Photograph (Chicago, 1940), Hedrich-Blessing Collection, Chicago History Museum.

Delft Montessori School. Herman Hertzberger, 1968. Delft, Netherlands.

Figure 3.12— Built-in Window Furnitures for Individual Studies.

Figure 3.13— Interior Openings.

Figure 3.14— Activity Area.

Photographs from Herman Hertzberger and Abram de Swaan, Alle Scholen / The Schools Of Herman Hertzberger, 1st ed.

(Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009).

Geschwister-Scholl Girls High School. Hans Scharoun, 1958, Luenen, Germany.

Figure 3.15— Interior of Classroom.

Figure 3.16—Outdoor Learning Areas.

Photographs from “Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium In Luenen”, Bauwelt, (1960).

From Enclosure to Partition

43

44

From Enclosure to Partition

buildings, as it always left the understanding of school community outside the definition of the classroom. Then the question at stake is that, how can the need for defining the borders in relation to the pedagogies be mediated with the school as a community.

There are examples, whose comparison can render visible the relationship of these borders to pedagogies. At a glance over the drawings of the three schools, Crow Island School in the United States by E. & E. Saarinen and Perkins, Wheeler & Will (1940), Geschwister-Scholl Girls High School in West Germany by Hans Scharoun (1961), and Delft Montessori School in the Netherlands by Herman Hertzberger (1970), it will be seen that the classrooms offer similar activities - one large room for lessons, one smaller room for activities, an outdoor space, and services. Moreover, in each of these schools these units are configured in the same way: classrooms double-loaded along a corridor. Still, when the three are contextualized in their pedagogical statements, the architectural agencies that materialize them become more visible.

The Crow Island School was designed by Eero and Eliel Saarinen and Perkins, Wheeler & Will in 1940. The idea of autonomous classrooms, and their design was based on the observations of Perkins in the existing school before Crow Island.1 This is significant. Then, what Crow Island School did was to architecturally consolidate the teaching model, where students did not leave the supervision area of the teacher. Therefore, the design incorporated all the elements of education in a single unit. The interior work that Saarinens carried out was built upon the idea that the school was the continuation of education that started in the domestic setting, and should resemble this setting as much as possible, hence the use of warm materials 1. “Crow Island Revisited”. Architectural Forum, 1955; Hudnut, Joseph. “Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill.”. Architectural Forum, 1941.

Figure 3.17—Plan of a Levittown House.

Figure 3.18—Plan of Crow Island School Classroom.

From Enclosure to Partition

45

the school as a community.

There are examples, whose comparison can render visible the relationship of these borders to pedagogies. At a glance over the drawings of the three schools, Crow Island School in the United States by E. & E. Saarinen and Perkins, Wheeler & Will (1940), Geschwister-Scholl Girls High School in West Germany by Hans Scharoun (1961), and Delft Montessori School in the Netherlands by Herman Hertzberger (1970), it will be seen that the classrooms offer similar activities - one large room for lessons, one smaller room for activities, an outdoor space, and services. Moreover, in each of these schools these units are configured in the same way: classrooms double-loaded along a corridor. Still, when the three are contextualized in their pedagogical statements, the architectural agencies that materialize them become more visible.

The Crow Island School was designed by Eero and Eliel Saarinen and Perkins, Wheeler & Will in 1940. The idea of autonomous classrooms, and their design was based on the observations of Perkins in the existing school before Crow Island.10 This is significant. Then, what Crow Island School did was to architecturally consolidate the teaching model, where students did not leave the supervision area of the teacher. Therefore, the design incorporated all the elements of education in a single unit. The interior work that Saarinens carried out was built upon the idea that the school was the continuation of education that started in the domestic setting, and should resemble this setting as much as possible, hence the use of warm materials in the interiors of the building, child-sized, movable furniture, scaled down ceiling height, chalkboard, window seats, fixtures, counters and sinks, designed by the architects. Each classroom made autonomous, was provided 10. “Crow Island Revisited”. Architectural Forum, 1955; Hudnut, Joseph. “Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill.”. Architectural Forum, 1941.

Figure 3.19—Plans of Lower, Middle, and Upper Classrooms in Geschwister-Scholl Girls High School.

“Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium In Luenen”, Bauwelt, (1960), p.1072

Classroom Disposition

Classroom Plan

Classroom Section

Superivison and Activity Areas

Classroom Cluster

Cluster to Whole

From Enclosure to Partition

48

with a private garden, separate workshop areas and wet-services, resembling a suburban house in their disposition.

The autonomy of the classroom is also visible architecturally in the other two schools. In each of the three schools, classrooms are not constructed as subdivisions of a predefined form, but were given singular masses. In Geschwister-Scholl Girls High School designed by Hans Scharoun, the autonomy of the classroom was not driven by a necessity for supervision, but based on a pedagogical - psychological assumption. Accordingly, three kinds of classrooms (Klassenwohnungen) were created. They were composed of main lecture room, cloak room, group room, and an outdoor learning and play area. They correspond to three age groups and their specific needs. The dimensions, colours, and openings of each classroom differed following the anthroposophical theories of Rudolf Steiner, who argued the spiritual development of a person is linked to direct experience and observation.11 The space, colour, and light of the classroom, thus, followed the biological and spiritual development of the children in their recognition of themselves and their surroundings.12 Each age group was grouped along a corridor, all of which connected to the main block housing common classrooms and areas.

The Montessori School in Delft, designed by Hertzberger, also follows similar disposition in massing the classrooms separately. However, it does not aim to give autonomy to the classroom. The child-centred Montessori education suggests self-directed activities, learning by doing and play, and leaves the teacher as a guide. The architecture of the school, therefore, follows to provide areas in different characters by articulating the walls, 11.Rudolf Steiner, Waldorf Education And Anthroposophy, 1st ed. (Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995).

12. “Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium In Luenen”, Bauwelt, (1960), pp.1072-1083.

Figure 3.20—Plan, Section and Organisation Diagram of Delft Montessori School.

Hertzberger, Herman, Space And Learning (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2008)

From Enclosure to Partition

ceiling heights and floor levels and by not aligning the basic units. The resultant configuration provides students to work simultaneously in groups or individually on the activities they chose. The basic unit that repeats is not anymore the classroom defined in the two previous examples through the teacher, but a series of interconnected rooms in a hierarchical order of privacy, light, sound, density, and movement. The unit composed of a large main classroom area, a small workshop, an individual/ group area, and wetservices, is not separate from the main hall of the school.

What this comparison suggests is that this registration lies at simple but a forceful one. While all three were based on the same organization, a unit repeated along two sides of the corridor, the significant difference between the pedagogies of each of them was expressed through architectural elements defining the borders between public-private, interior-exterior, supervised-non-supervised, individual-collective, student-teacher, forbidden-permitted through the classroom’s size, walls, doors, windows, and corridors.

These architectural elements, their significance in establishing the conditions of continuity and separation, and the cultural meanings they entail has been widely discussed in other disciplines of architectural practice’s interest. Georg Simmel’s Bridge and Door (1909), on the separation and connection as a human activity, Alison and Peter Smithson’s doorstep philosophy, Aldo van Eyck’s works on ‘in-between’ spaces, and recently Georges Teyssot’s A Topology of Everyday Constellations (2013), on the obscure technological, physical, and psychological thresholds of everyday life, and Bernhard Siegert’s Doors: On the Materiality of the Symbolic (2012), on the symbolic meanings of the cultural technologies, and Peter Sloterdijk’s Foams (2016) on spatial pluralities, all indicate the

49

From Enclosure to Partition

meanings of these architectural elements in daily use.13 Indeed, school architecture can benefit from all these discussions, as the cultural and symbolic meanings, and the functions of the borders that separate different zones are very much part of the school itself, as it has many borders in between: between students, ages, grades, between students and teachers, between classroom and corridors, between public and private, between permitted and prohibited.

The analysis until now has provided a range of school typologies and different pedagogical arguments, which were influential in the last century, and most of which diverted their path from the mainstream school production. However, this range does not provide a complete set of possibilities. What is more, the corridor and classroom typology does not recognize the differences of teaching and learning environments and register these borders in a repetitive manner, without acknowledging other types of teaching and learning. Through the analysis, it has also become visible that the definition of the borders is where the pedagogical statements become the most effective.

Therefore, partitioning allows a challenge to the typical diagram of the school. The borders, which define the activities inside and outside the classroom, as well as the relationships of the two provides a possibility to acknowledge the differences of teaching and learning methods in relation to each other, and thus, a coexistence that can evolve to an understanding 13. Georg Simmel, “Bridge and Door,” trans. Mark Ritter, Theory, Culture & Society 11, no. 5 (February 1994): 5-10; Georges Teyssot, A Topology of Everyday Constellations (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013); Bernhard Siegert, “Doors: On the Materiality of the Symbolic,” trans. John Durham Peters, Grey Room 47 (Spring 2012): 6-23; Peter Sloterdijk, Foams, Spheres Volume III: Plural Spherology, 1st ed. (South Pasadena: Semiotext(e), 2016).

50

From Enclosure to Partition

of the school community, which the corridor is not capable of doing. The partitioning as a strategy thereby, conotes a concept that that extends the single classroom unit through a series of connections to other rooms, where the partitioning itself mediates the both sides. This allows a rethinking of the school and the definition of classrooms and corridor, into a sequence of rooms that reinforce the specifities of different methods of learning without isolating them.

Accordingly, the dissertation will first set up a number of analytical matrices, where different elements of school that were mentioned above can be extended to cover other possibilities, and propose two designs.

The proposal, thus, starts with thinking the classroom sizes and their connections to each other within the framework of different teaching and learning protocols.

51

52

From Enclosure to Partition

Hierarchical

Assisted

Non-Supervised

Individual

Group Work

Classroom

Table 1 - Seating Arrangements According to Teacher - Student and Student - Student Relationships.

Seating arrangements are direct results of the teaching and learning methods. Therefore, in the design of schools identifying the differences between these settings and the spatial requirements they require, should be the first step.

53

From Enclosure to Partition

Static

Movement as Part of Classroom Work

Demonstration and Production

1.40

0.50

4.20

0.80

0.75

0.75

1.50

0.75

1.50

0.80

0.80 3.43 0.80

0.50

0.75

0.65

0.801.900.80

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.50

Seminar

0.75

1.50

3.76

0.80

3.40 0.80

1.25

1.25

1.50

3.82 0.80

0.65

0.75

0.50

1.50

0.50

0.75 0.75

1.50

1.80

1.50

0.80 0.75

1.50

1.80

0.75

0.50

0.50

1.40

1.25

0.95

1.50

0.75

0.80 0.75

0.50 0.50

0.80 0.50

1.25

1.25

1.50

1.25

1.25

1.25

0.95

1.40

0.75

0.50

1.50

0.50 0.75

1.25

1.25

0.75

0.50

1.50

0.80

1.25

1.25

1.50

0.50 2.00

0.75

As framed before, the size of a classroom plays a major role defining the range of possibilities within classroom. Although learning is perceived as a passive activity, recent methods of teaching integrate standing and moving in the classroom to learning practices. Therefore, the dimensioning of classrooms should take into account not only the dimensions of desks and the passages, but also the areas required for moving the furniture and activities done in movements.

Table 2 - Size of Rooms for Different Seating Arrangements.

54

3.50

24.50

2.50

36.50

3.50

24.50

2.50

36.50

3.50

24.50

2.50

36.50

3.50

24.50

2.50

36.50

24.50

2.50

36.50

24.50

2.50

18.50

3.50

6.50

12.50

3.50

8.50

4.50

6.50

9.50

12.50

18.50

36.50

24.50

From Enclosure to Partition

36.50

4.50 3.50

9.50

6.50

12.50

4.50

6.50

8.50

12.50

18.50

24.50

36.50

2.50

18.50

4.50

3.50

9.50

12.50

4.50

12.50

4.50

6.50 6.50

8.50

8.50

6.50

4.50

3.50

9.50

12.50 6.50

12.50

24.50

4.50

18.50

3.50

36.50

2.50

18.50

24.50

36.50

2.50

18.50

18.50

12.50

4.50

6.50 8.50

6.50

4.50

3.50

9.50

12.50

18.50

24.50

36.50

2.50

18.50

3.50 2.50

4.50

6.50

9.50

12.50

4.50

6.50

8.50

12.50

18.50

24.50

36.50

2.50

18.50

55

From Enclosure to Partition

7.00

8.00

14.00

9.00

14.00

10.00

11.00

14.00

0%

However, classroom sizes, as the analysis before has shown, has been defined not by respecting to seating arrangements, but to conditions of daylighting.

But how can these dimensions be redefined respecting the differences of pedagogy? This table represents a series of tests undertaken to find the range of classroom depths allowing useful daylight illumination most of the time.

In order to achieve large classrooms, an increase in the daylight illumination can be provided by arrangements of the slabs in building section. Besides, different forms of slabs can contirbute to visual relationships and different seating arrangements. Larger classrooms that extend through different floors of the building, can also provide in the physical connection of different classrooms, and can define clusters around them.

100%

Table 3 - Study of the Useful Daylight Illumination in Different Classroom Width and Depth with Constant Floor Height 3,50 m.

Table 4 - Study of Useful Daylight Analysis of Classroom Depths in Relation to Different Cross Sections with Constant Height 3.5 m, and Constant Width 8.0 m.

From Enclosure to Partition

56

Table 5 - Accessibility and Circulation of Clusters Formed with Different Classroom Dimensions

Clasrooms with different dimensions and seating arrangements require clustering, as the interior of the classroom is as much defined by the outside of the classroom in a configuration without corridors. Different levels of privacy provide for specifying the educational activities in terms of creating conditions for concentrated and interrupted studies. Moreover, direct access between two rooms allow the extension of the studies to different settings in the form of differentiated learning, individual and group studies, assisted learning, discussion, breaks, and services such as preparation rooms.

From Enclosure to Partition

These studies unfold into a series of units, with respect to dfferent learning scenarios. Different sizes, forms, and connectivities of classrooms define the rooms in relation to teaching and learning methods, and these rooms come together to form larger clusters, where they support each other and form learning environments specific to subjects and the nature of the activities.

(Pages 76-77)

57

58

From Enclosure to Partition

Classroom Cluster for Formal Teaching, Small Seminar and Group Work

59

From Enclosure to Partition

Formal Lectures Cluster

60

From Enclosure to Partition

Laboratory Cluster with Rooms for Preparation, Discussion, Individual and Group Work

61

From Enclosure to Partition

Workshops Clustered Around Performance and Exhibition Room

62

Project Based Work Cluster

Shoreditch Park Secondary School

The clusters are tested in two proposals, the first of which is situated in Shoreditch Park in Hackney. Surrounded by the typical estates of London and recent tall housing developments the site is at the centre of a residential neighbourhood, where also a leisure centre and a primary school is situated. The proposal responds to the existing development of Britannia Leisure Centre, a project consisting of a new leisure centre, a secondary school and 480 housing units. The number of units are defined through calculations to fund the construction of the secondary school and the leisure centre. The proposal adheres the economical model of the existing proposal.

The school is conceived as an atrium block, upper floors of which accommodates the classroom clusters for 600 students aged between 11 and 16. The classroom clusters are positioned at the corners of the upper floors, separated from each other by breakout areas, service cores and large projectbased rooms. Although it follows a simple disposition of the clusters, the clusters that extend to the two floors create a diverse learning environments suitable for different subjects.

As much as the learning areas connects to each other in plan through an enfilade system and in section with the galleries and the staircases of the large classrooms, the atrium connects the classrooms visually and provides a main area where the clusters overlook. Besides the common facilities such as the dining room and sports hall opening towards the atrium, the ground and lower ground floor accommodate a learning centre open to public use. Lower ground and ground floors are connected to each other by large stairs, connecting the entrances for the students and for the public to the main area of the atrium. The learning centre opens to the main area controlled by transparent doors, providing simultaneous use of the school by different users. In this, the atrium does not only connect the park, leisure centre, and the street, but also reinterprets the central hall typology by making the public a part of it within an educational framework.

This educational framework is reflected in the form of the school. The learning centre is conceived in two floors, with entrances from the park and from the plaza lower from the

main street. The entrances for the public redefine the axis which connects the main street to the park and the leisure centre through the learning centre. On the other hand, the entrances for students define another axis between the primary and the secondary school. The entrances for the students are from the back street where the main entrance of the primary school faces, suggesting the reorganisation of the street as a shared outdoor space punctuated at one end with the playground of the primary school, and the plaza of the secondary school. The housing development is also proposed along this axis, whose entrances face to the main street, precipitating a further exploration of the ground floors of these housing blocks which faces to this axis.

The proposal negotiates an interiorised urban space connecting to the other public facilities around the school and the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position as a landmark and a public building. The upper floors of the school, tops the transparent ground and lower ground levels, where the connections it entails become visible.

0

25

125

66

2nd Floor (+7.3 m) Plan

0 1.5

7.5

67

3rd Floor (+3.8 m) Plan

0 1.5

7.5

68

Disposition of Clusters

Connectivity Pattern of Rooms

70

0

12.5

72

0

25

74

Cluster of Formal Teaching Rooms 0

4

75

Cluster of Rooms where Movement is part of Teaching 0

4

76

Hertslet Road Secondary School

The second proposal is situated between heavily retail-based Holloway Road and a residential Hertslet Road. Situated at the centre of Holloway area, the building is in a close distance to many high-street facilities and markets, as well as to a leisure centre, two primary schools, Islington youth centre, and to two centres of City and Islington College. It proposes a secondary school for Lower and Upper Holloway, where a secondary school need is identified. However, in the area, there is no land available for the construction of a secondary school.

Therefore, the proposal is framed within a retail-led mixeduse development infill responding to Islingtonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Nagâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Head and Upper Holloway Road development plan. The proposal aims at negotiating the physical limitations of the land and the financial limitations by providing lettable floor areas, which is expected to support the maintenance of the school.

The school is conceived as a linear block which accommodates the classroom clusters for 900 students aged between 11 and 16 in its upper four floors and lettable office floors in two blocks projecting from the schools. The clusters are arranged linearly, separated from each other with breakout areas, service cores and large project-based rooms facing to the galleries shared with the lettable floors. The connections between the classrooms in the plan and in the section, extends visually with the lettable areas, while remaining physically separated with service cores and galleries. The proposal addresses a curriculum giving importance to vocational learning and outside-school placements. Although it follows a simple disposition of the clusters, the clusters that extend in four floors in a relationship with co-working offices for charities and the City and Islington College teaching programme, create a diverse learning environments suitable for different subjects and for the activities in partnership with extra-school bodies.

The building on the ground floor provides access from Hertslet Road to the retail arcade extending to Holloway Road. The ground floor accommodates the common facilities for the students such as dining hall, lounge and study areas as part of a larger public area shared with co-working spaces and a public lounge. The ground floor is connected to the learning centre,

workshops, and kitchen on the first floor. The ground and the first floors of the school building provides a public centre at the end of the arcade, which serves to the different existing bodies around the area, such as charity offices, community college and primary schools. Therefore, it becomes a hub connecting these bodies within an educational framework. The spatial genericity of the learning centre, and the separate circulation systems of the public areas, lettable areas, and the school allows the ground and the first floors of the school to be used in different times by the community.

The proposal explores the potential of the schools to retain their specificities in the urban within the increasing pressure of financial and physical restrictions. The ground and first floor of the building extending across the arcade aim to create a hub school, where the existing educational and public bodies can come together

1. Holloway Road Station, 2. London Metropolitan University, 3., 4. Ciy and Islington College, 5. Holloway Road, 6., 7. Primary Schools, 8. Sobell Leisure Centre, 9. Islington Youth Centre

9

6

8

7

4

5

3

2

1

0

25

125

78

4th Floor (+15.4 m) Plan

0 1.5

7.5

79

3rd Floor (+11.6 m) Plan

0 1.5

7.5

81

2nd Floor (+7.8 m) Plan

0 1.5

7.5

82

Disposition of Clusters

Connectivity Pattern of Rooms

84

Longitudinal Section

0 1.5

7.5

86

Transversal Section

0 1.5

7.5

91

4 Urban School

In the making of social, the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role is not limitied to the scale of the building. It also extends to urban and territorial scales in terms of both the function and representation. They can be classified as infrastructures. They are infrastructures not because they explicitly are networks that connect different scales and locations, but because they define the scales as much as the infrastructural networks. They define neighbourhoods, communities, and nations; and they are defined by catchment areas, statistics, and zonings through the same economic, political, and physical forces that shape the school buildings themselves.

This chapter aims at analysing the notions that are attached to schools, as much the forces that are exerted upon them. They can be traced by examining the school typologies mentioned previously, within their larger economic, social, and political contexts, namely in two different countries, the United States and Pakistan. Both contexts, in the aftermath of the Second World War, differ from the European ones where redistributive social-democratic state models were established under which, the schools gained a new form and meaning.1 The projects analysed in terms of pedagogies, typologies and building technologies in the previous chapters, also responded to and negotiated with different policies, actors, and socioeconomic and political contexts. Placing the Modernist school of Europe and the post-war schools of the United States in the context of a period marked by Cold War politics, decolonisation, and nation-building in the global South, and characterised by the new urban and social problems in the United States makes these relationships more explicit. Indeed, in parallel to these projects, a general transition of architectural modernism marked this period, which has been demonstrated in the previous chapters 1.Mark Swenarton, Tom Avermaete and Dirk van den Heuvel, Architecture And The Welfare State, 1st ed. (London: Routledge, 2015).

Urban School

in architectural scales. While the work in Pakistan, draws a very similar model to the general history of planning architectural modernism in its techniques and forms mainly concerned with the concepts of nationalism, standardisation, and rationalisation and present the tranlation of modern architecture and city planning outside the European context,the works in the United States draws a different history where the quantitative and qualitative models organically integrate aiming at reducing the risks caused by suburbanization, immigration, and the anxiety of Cold War. The projects in these two contexts are connected to each other by a global philanthropist body, the Ford Foundation, who spent many of its resources in educational facilities.2 Besides, the projects on the construction systems and pedagogies mentioned before, the Ford Foundation sought to promote schools to overcome the urban and social problems that the immigration from rural towns to the major cities, and from the city centres to suburbs triggered. At the same time, cooperating with international institutions such as World Bank, United Nations, and the United States Agency for International Development, the Foundation assisted the social, economic and cultural development of the Third World, primarily in the form of modern planning and architectural projects, under the Overseas Development Fund.3 While the project in Pakistan restates the modernist school adding on its implications in urban scales, the projects in the United States complete the elements and scales that has been discussed in the previous chapters.

Besides, it demonstrates the reinterpretation of school within a more contemporary situation, urban transformation.

The first Ford Foundation grant to Pakistan was in 1951 for the

2. 1. The Ford Foundation, Report of The Trustees of The Ford Foundation (The Ford Foundation, 1950). The information on the funds and initiatives of the Ford Foundation can be found in Ford Foundation Annual Reports that are available online. “Library”, Ford Foundation, 2016 <https:// www.fordfoundation.org/library/> [accessed 15 July 2016].

3. The Ford Foundation, Report of The Trustees of The Ford Foundation (The Ford Foundation, 1950). The information on the funds and initiatives of the Ford Foundation can be found in Ford Foundation Annual Reports that are available online. “Library”, Ford Foundation, 2016 <https:// www.fordfoundation.org/library/> [accessed 15 July 2016].The aims of the Ford Foundation were stated in a number of books written by the Ford Foundation trustees and experts: Mitchell Sviridoff, The Ford Foundation and National Affairs, 1st edn (New York, N.Y.: Ford Foundation,1971). Mitchell Sviridoff and Franklin Thomas, Inventing Community Renewal, 1st edn (New York: New School University, Milano Graduate School, 2004). Magat, Richard, The Ford Foundation At Work, Philanthropic Choices, Methods, And Styles (New York: Plenum Press, 1979)

92

Urban School

establishment of three polytechnic colleges and three home economics colleges in both territories of the country.4 The first grant anticipated a series of grants from the Ford Foundation: consultancy services for the educational masterplan, several city planning projects, and a school construction program.5 The Educational Masterplan of Pakistan (19511957), prepared by Doxiadis Associates, proposed an educational system composed of primary and secondary schools, polytechnic and home economics colleges, together with teacher training centres and education extension centres, some of which were built with the financial and technical assistance of the Ford Foundation. Aimed at training the new nation, this network of schools addressed shaping the civic identity by offering them as modern educational institution models that prepare the qualified personnel of the new country.

Besides the educational masterplan, most of these projects were commissioned to Doxiadis Associates, the prominent consultancy firm of the time. His selection was significant. If the official history of modern architecture was written in the West as an aesthetical canon and scientific doctrine, a history parallel to it in the Third World was written with an elaborate scientific methodology of C.A. Doxiadis. Moreover, Doxiadis’ bureaucratic side is inseparable from his ideologies and technocratic fantasies that culminated in his theory of Ekistics, a quantitatively rationalised planning methodology, and Ecumenopolis, a seamlessly networked and entirely urbanised planetary city.6 Pakistan, through Doxiadis’ projects, was going to be added to this seamless network of modern cities, with the financial and technical assistance from the United States and the Ford Foundation.

The Ford Foundation and the Government of Pakistan commissioned 4. George F. Gant, ‘The Ford Foundation Program in Pakistan’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 323 (1959), pp. 150-159.

5. Corresponding architectural projects are found in Constantinos A. Doxiadis Archive: Doxiadis Associates, “Education Extension Center”, DA Monthly Bulletin, no.16, August 1960, unpaginated.

“Home Economics College”, DA Monthly Bulletin, no.17, September 1960, unpaginated. “Home Economics College”, DA Review, v.8, no.81,July 1972, unpaginated. “Rawalpindi Polytechnic”, Archive Files 35839. “Rawalpindi Polytechnic”, DA Monthly Bulletin, no.72, November 1964, unpaginated. Constantinos A. Doxiadis Archive. The Federal Capital of Pakistan, May 31,1960 – May 30,1962, Reel 0652, Ford Foundation Grants - A to B, Athens Technological Organization (06000216), Ford Foundation records, Grants A-B, Rockefeller Archive Center.

6. Constantinos A. Doxiadis, Ekistics: An Introduction to The Science of Human Settlements, 1st edn. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968). Constantinos A. Doxiadis, Action for Human Settlements, 1st edn. (New York: Norton,1976).

93

Urban School

94

Urban School

95

Doxiadis Associates in 1958, for the development of Korangi Township in West Pakistan, planned to house the émigrés from India.7 It was the first grand project of the new nation-state separated from India in 1947, and it was destined to be the city that could foster the national identity among the new citizens and a modern city model for the country. The town was planned as nestled units systematically growing in size and program.

Accordingly, the project started from the design of core houses for different income levels, “the building of nuclei houses only, to be completed later by the occupants”, a common United Nations housing policy applied in the Third World at the time.8 While community classes I referred to a group of the same type of houses, community classes II referred to a group of community classes I of the same type with a playground at their centre, community class III referred to a group of the same type of community class II with an elementary school at their centre, and community class IV referred to a group of community class III of different income with a market, shopping centre, public park, sports ground, and a secondary school.9 It was additive, and thus, expandable. It could be applied to any part of Pakistan’s territory, and, in Doxiadis’ personal view, to all the world. Indeed, Doxiadis Associates proposed such rationalised planning principles also for the federal capital of Pakistan, and later, as the Ekistics logarithmic scale and grid in his Action for Human Settlements (1976).10 In this logarithmic scale, elementary schools and secondary schools were given a central role in forming the neighbourhoods. Not only because of the calculated distances between houses and schools, but also because of the central role they actually play in the formation of the modern citizen subject. Although in Korangi the neighbourhood units differed in their income relative to each other, the schools did not show a notable difference.

(Figure 4.01)For the primary and secondary schools each, Doxiadis Associates produced two schemes that changed according to the size and orientation of the plots. In these schemes, ventilation and daylighting defined the form

7. Écochard, Michel. Problems of Refugees in Karachi. Report Number 1 and 2. Unpublished, 1953. The report and design prepared by Michel Écochard for United Nations can be found: “Michel Écochard | Problems of Refugees In Karachi | Archnet”, Archnet.org, 2016 <http://archnet. org/authorities/33/publications/9872> [accessed 15 July 2015].

8. Doxiadis Associates, “The Development of The Korangi Area”, Ekistics 8, no. 47 (1959). p. 218.

9.“The Development of The Korangi Area”, (1959). pp.207-35.

10.The Federal Capital: A Preliminary Report, Reel 0652, Ford Foundation Grants - A to B, Athens Technological Organization (06000216), Ford Foundation records, Grants A-B, Rockefeller Archive Center.

Figure 1.01—Community Class III of low-income housing with the typical school at its center Figure 1.02—Two different secondary school typologies demonstrating the use of standardised building units.

Doxiadis Associates, Korangi Schools, secondary, DA Monthly Bulletin 70, September (1964), unpaginated. Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Foundation.

Urban School

96

of the classroom. (Figure 4.03)Primary schools were designed as single-storey buildings, whereas the secondary schools were planned in two storeys.

Classrooms positioned along a portico formed the basic unit of these schools, coming together in different configurations, always respecting the directions of the sun, and providing open areas between them. Therefore, as much as the school were standardised and rationalised, they were also equal in their distribution, accessibility, and delivery.

In East Pakistan School Building Programme (1962) that ran concurrently with the construction of Korangi Township, these schools were further rationalised and standardised.11 The long-term programme projected the school construction until 1990, with respect to the desired attendance levels, expenses, and the development of the country. These schools were made of standardised details and components that define the structural dimensions and, as in the Korangi schools, combine into strips. These strips could be configured according to the size of the school and the plot of the building.

Moreover, they could be repeated endlessly on any site. Although the additive community systems and the corresponding grid were not repeated except for few cities in the country, 7000 primary and 500 secondary schools of these prototypical models were proposed all over the country.

Hence, neither the housing, nor the city plan, but the school outlined the infrastructure of a new nation.

The relationship Donzelot had drawn between philanthropy and schooling in the 19th century, was restated in the 1960s through the planning discipline. Doxiadis articulated architectural and planning techniques with the regulatory tools and policies, in a visible dialogue with policy makers, bureaucrats, and the international institutions that sought for global governance. For instance, in the East Pakistan School Building Program, the 9-page document Doxiadis sent to the Ford Foundation, articulated the rationalised, standardised, and systematic architectural response through a rhetoric of objective evaluations, data collections, and analysis of climate, local systems, regional strategies, scientific paradigms.12 The schools 11. Doxiadis Associates, “Primary School Programme, East Pakistan” Ekistics 16, no. 94 (1963): pp.184-87. The full document is found: New Schools for East Pakistan, Reel 1383, Ford Foundation Grants - Government of West Pakistan (05800186), Ford Foundation records, Grants E-G, Rockefeller Archive Center.

12. The correspondences can be found in many files at Ford Foundation Archive. Correspondences for Athens Technological Organization: C. A. Doxiadis and the Ford Foundation, May 31,1960 – May 30,1962, Reel 0652, Ford Foundation Grants - A to B, Athens Technological Organization (06000216), Ford Foundation records, Grants A-B, Rockefeller Archive Center.

Figure 1.03—Community Class III of low-income housing with the typical school at its center Doxiadis Associates, Korangi School, secondary, East Pakistan school building programme, DA Monthly Bulletin 70, September (1964), unpaginated. Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Foundation.

97

Urban School

were conceived in relation to a planning formula, rather than an accurate pedagogical statement. However, even so, such socio-political ambitions and quantitative environmental, statistical, and technical aspects were manifested in the form of the school and the city. In the United States, on the other hand, a new meaning was assigned to schools in the city. In doing so, they add to the set of scales that I mentioned in the previous chapters.

The transformation of school architecture referred to in Chapter II went concurrently to the transformation of the American City. The Educational Facilities Laboratories suggested that the schools could be the “symbolic focus” and the civic centre of the neighbourhood under urban and social transformation, as community schools.13 Even though the community school existed long before in the American context, the Educational Facilities Laboratories’ work reinterpreted the program and the meaning of school in the framework of the urban renewal projects, by planning these transformations through schools.14 In the aftermath of the Second World War, the American City was under transformation. Firstly, because of the people fleeing the city centres for suburban areas, secondly, because of the people fleeing the rural south and filling the emptied neighbourhoods, along with a social transformation and decay, and thirdly, because of the federal and local governments who tried to transform these neighbourhoods physically and socially to reverse this decay. The Ford Foundation added to the country-wide effort, to transform grey areas. The Gray Areas programme of the Ford Foundation, offered a more comprehensive effort than the sole physical transformation that the local and federal government undertook. Adopting a theory of opportunity from socio-scientific studies that formulated the juvenile delinquency as a response to the society that did not offer opportunities, Gray Areas programme proposed to increase opportunities through a comprehensive

13. Ferrer, T., The Schools, and Urban Renewal: A Case Study from New Haven, (New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1962).p.2.

14. The relationship between urban renewal and school can be found in the Ford Foundation’s and Educational Facilities Laboratories publications of: Larry, M., Community/School: Sharing the Space and the Action: A Report, (New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1973)., Educational Facilities Laboratories, a College in the City: An Alternative: A Report from Educational Facilities Laboratories, (New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1969)., and Ferrer, T., The Schools, and Urban Renewal: A Case Study from New Haven, (New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1962).

Pages 97-104 - Report sent to the Ford Foundation by Doxiadis Associates.

East Pakistan School Building Programme, New Schools for East Pakistan, Reel 1383, Ford Foundation Grants Government of West Pakistan (05800186), Ford Foundation records, Grants E-G, Rockefeller Archive Center.

98

Urban School

Figure 1.04â&#x20AC;&#x201D;New Haven Urban Renewal: (Clockwise from left-top image) 1. Juxtaposed plans of 1958 and 1972, 2. 1972 Plan, 3. Roads, Parks and Schools (Hard Infrastructure, Soft Infrastructure and Social Infrastructure), 4. School as the geomtrical center of the residential area

99

Urban School

education and employment strategy.15 New Haven was one of the five cities, in which the Gray Areas program operated. At the same time, more than half of the city centre was rebuilt by the Interstate Highway project, and urban renewal projects supported by the federal and local governments.

Community schools were the answer to accommodate both ambitions. They were going to organise the neighbourhoods was being rebuilt and were going to be proposed as a solution in fighting against juvenile delinquency.

Henry A. Conte Elementary School and Community Center (1962) designed by Gordon Bunshaft and Natalie de Blois of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, was the first community school built during the urban renewal of New Haven. It became not only a model for ten school buildings that were planned in New Haven but was also promoted in the publications of Educational Facilities Laboratories as a model for the country’s future schools in urban renewal areas.16 The school, built on a plot next to a garden square emptied of houses and demarcated by a new highway, was composed 15. This theory was adapted from the book that was published in 1960s: Richard A Cloward and Lloyd E Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Study of Delinquent Gangs, 5th edn (Oxon: Routledge, 2013). At the same time this opportunity theory was adopted by the Robert Kennedy’s President’s Committee on Juvenile Delinquency which formed an informal alliance with Ford Foundation’s projects. Mitchell Sviridoff and Franklin Thomas, Inventing Community Renewal, 1st edn (New York: New School University, Milano Graduate School, 2004), p.2.

16. “It was Lee, who first contacted SOM about for years ago. An architect was needed for the city’s first new community school. At the same time, Lee was somewhat disappointed with the look of the city’s earlier redevelopment efforts. Impressed by SOM’s Connecticut General Headquarters (Forum, Sept. ‘57), Lee convinced them to take the job.” “A City School Gives Lift to Urban Renewal”, Architectural Forum, 1963, pp. 96-99. Indeed, Conte School reproduces many of the architectural elements found in Connecticut General Headquarters. At the same time, it reproduces many of the suburban ideals, and the new subject. For an analysis of such ideals and subject in Connecticut general Headquarters: Louise A Mozingo, Pastoral Capitalism, 1st edn (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011). Educational Facilities Laboratories’ publication on New Haven Schools: Ferrer, T., the Schools and Urban Renewal: A Case Study from New Haven.

Figure 1.05—Schools in addition to Hard and Soft Infrastructures as Social Infrastructures.

100

Urban School

1

4

3

2

5

7

6

8

of three pavilions. The one facing the square, housed a city library and a senior citizens centre, providing a public entry to the schoolyard. The building behind this entrance housed an auditorium for the use of both school and public, and it was connected to the school by an underground passage. The school was located on the first floor of the furthest pavilion from the street, while its ground floor accommodated a gym, a swimming pool, a cafeteria, and a youth centre, all open to the public.

Conte School and others were urban acupunctures that provide opportunities in the city under transformation. In some other schools, one could also find institutions such as employment agencies, day care, and social services. Many urban elements were consolidated in one complex with an intention to create a centre. These schools echoed the suburban centres with their programs and spatial organisation. Pavilions with open areas and a separated school in plan and section did not incorporate the extra-school programs. It is the symptom of shaping the new civic subject, rather than transforming the schools. Such schools were expected to increase the education level in the neighbourhood and to assist the solution of social problems, to cultivate a suburban identity that symbolizes the post-war American way of living in the low-income and minority areas, and by doing so, they were also expected to attract the middle-class population back to the inner city, from where they fled to suburbia for such facilities.

In Richard C. Lee High School (1967), designed by Kevin Roche, John Dinkeloo and Associates, the structural flexibility mentioned in Chapter II and the urban agenda were combined. The school was designed for another emptied plot and like Conte School it had an extended program.

Workshops, offices, practice rooms, a divisible open lecture hall, and a cafeteria were housed in the lower floor, which was connected to the other building housing a sports hall and a swimming pool. More public uses,

Figure 1.06â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Henry A. Conte Elementary School,

by Gordon Bunshaft and Natalie de Blois (Skidmore, Ownings & Merrill), New Haven, 19 (1952).

1. Library, 2. Senior Citizens Center, 3. Auditorium, 4. Pool, 5.

Gym, 6. Cafeteria, 7. Teen Lounge, 8. Classrooms.The diagrams (clockwise from top-left): 1. The classroom to building, 2.

Circulation, 3. Public Use, 4. Part to Whole

Urban School

lecture hall, cafeteria, swimming pool, and sports hall were aligned on an axis that ran through the main building, organising the lower floor and connecting them to the main street. On the upper floor, which is divided into four units around a central library, each unit accommodated four hundred students in eleven classrooms, a laboratory, and a larger classroom divided by movable and operable walls. The interior was completely controlled by mechanical systems that made possible both the depth of the plan and the massive exterior, which aimed at providing a strong public image. At the same time, its glazed corners “[gave] glimpses of its inherent structural flexibility” and its mechanical control, comparable to the skylight grid in Hillsdale High School.17 Also, among the drawings of Richard C. Lee High School, one may find an image that raises a point about the formulation of this school type and its dissemination. This image was described as the representation of studentteacher-school principle ratio.18 However, it might as well represent the social ideas that were the leitmotif of the previous architectural designs that oscillates between an intention for the creation of self-directed students, and an aim of homogeneity that targets the different one. Speculatively, it opens a window onto an organisational process that did not only define the school or its reception by the student but also classified the architectural knowledge and the architect-subject.

17. “The plan begins with walls and interior closed spaces but gives glimpses of its inherent structural flexibility at the windowed corners.” “Gateway School”, Progressive Architecture, 1967, p.150.

18. could not reach the original image, or its description in the related folders of the project in Yale University Library Manuscripts and Archives. The image is published in: Pelkonen, E.., Kevin Roche: Architecture as Environment (New Haven and London: Yale University Press) 2011, p.44.

It is published with a caption “diagram depicting existing student-teacher-principal ratio, aimed to support dividing the school into four smaller compartments.”

101

Figure 1.07—Diagram drawn for Richard C. Lee High School

by KEvin Roche.

1. Library, 2. Senior Citizens Center, 3. Auditorium, 4. Pool, 5.

Gym, 6. Cafeteria, 7. Teen Lounge, 8. Classrooms.The diagrams (clockwise from top-left): 1. The classroom to building, 2.

Circulation, 3. Public Use, 4. Part to Whole

Urban School

The Ford Foundationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s investment in the Gray Areas programme became successful in the responses received. Through federal grants and other philanthropist organisations, the programme raised ten times of the initial investment. Moreover, Gray Areas programme was later adopted by Senator Robert Kennedy, inventing the community development corporations, which brought together public, private and philanthropist bodies together in a comprehensive planning scheme.

The two projects make clear the scales, within which the schools are instrumental. Moreover, they complete the range of scales from the research in furniture scales, adding the neighbourhood, city, nation, and global scales. However, it is not possbile to find any reflectin on these scales in the schools of England. Hence, these scales open up a new possibilities defining the schools other than as protected buildings with open areas around them.

Proposals for London Responding to the context of central London, the dissertation offers the proposed schools as educational and public hubs. Since there is a large school building stock in London in a range from Victorian school buildings to new academies, proposing the schools as hubs contribute also to the existing building stock. The two proposals integrate a learning center, whose spatial genericity allows changing uses. While in school times they constitute a centre of the schools around them by providing them large rooms for activities in cooperation with each other, in extra-school hours they become part of the public activities not only centered around education but also working as cafes and coworking spaces, respecting their contexts.

Schools can retain their specificities in terms of their pedagogies and protocols of conduct, while they remain open for public uses.

The physical and economic constraints that defined the school typologies up to day, also define the relationships between the city and the school. What these examples has demonstrated adds up to this with other socio-economic factors and larger ambitions that as much define these relationships. In London, the physical constraints are at the extremes. The atrium school in Shoreditch Park proposes the school within a housing development, which constitutes the main form of development in central London. While this model offers financing the school construction through housing sales, this strategy remains limited in terms of maintenance costs.

102

Urban School

103

Urban School

104

Urban School

105

Urban School

106

Urban School

107

Urban School

Although housing developments with schools, historically, was a common practice in the 20th century, London context offers an inverted situation.

While in the former the schools were considered necessary for any large development, the latter suffers from school shortage and the definition of school as a protected building with open areas that require large plots. In central London, plots appropriate for such schools are very limited. Thus the proposal in Holloway Road, which is developed together with rentable office and retail areas within an arcade offers a possibility that can be generalised as an economical model. The ground floor is organised in order to separate the retail areas from the school entrance and school yard. On the upper floors the classrooms share the same floor with the rentable offices separated by galleries and cores. They are in visual relationships, and also accessible to each other at some floors. The connected floors are reserved for the charity offices in Holoway Road, some of which offers projects with students, and for the City and Islington college, three centres of which are in walking distance.

The school designs and the pedagogies mentioned previously in Chapter III, framed the school design with rhetorics of urban elements. Conceptualising the classrooms as houses and the corridors as streets is the most common one, as can be seen in the Crow Island, the Hunstanton Secondary, and the Geschwister-Scholl. The two designs propose to invert the situation and extend the spatial strategies forming the school to public realm. In both cases the spatial strategies used to develop the units, namely the enfilade system, are proposed to be extended to the public realm. Therefore the atrium in the first proposal, and the lettable floor areas in the second one should be read as part of the classroom clusters. While in the first the classroom is extended to an educational centre for the public of all ages, in the second, it is extended to lettable areas reserved for the programs found in the immediate surroundings that relate to education, reinterpreting the curriculum in a new way. To what extent this strategy can be effective in reformulating the education in other ways and interpreting the larger scales that the schools relate should be investigated further.

108

111

5 Conclusion

Simply put, school architecture in the last century has dealt with the efficiency of the plan layouts and at the same time well-ventilated and well-lit interiors. On the other hand, historically, schools were about an understanding of a community, which could foster identities that were projected to culminate into a coherent and productive society. Central to this dissertation has been the gaps between the methods of schooling and the spatial consequences of the physical and economic constraints.

Architecture and the city have come to be defined quantitatively in the last century. From the calculations of the architectural and city form in the Modernist architecture of the 1920s and 1930s to the technologydeterministic ideals of the 1960s, the built form of public architecture and its relationships to the city has come to be defined through performance and value managements imposed by policies and regulations. While the future appears to be defined through more quantitatively driven constraints, the dissertation discussed the ways in which these constraints limit school design in acknowledging different teaching and learning methods and intertwine with socio-political nature of schooling.

As recent projects of the Government of the United Kingdom have shown, the technicalities of the school projects provide a basis for measuring the value of the school projects quantitatively, while examinations measure the impact of education. Inevitably, the research in the recent years focused on setting up relationships between these two sets of quantities: student performances derived from the examination results, and building performances derived from the efficiency of construction and the values of daylighting, indoor air quality, acoustic and visual performances.

Consequently, the research and innovation in school design builds upon the use of technologies and the building performances. In each of these instances, the quantitative arguments represent an objective approach to

Conclusion

school design that seems beyond dispute. However, this does not opt out any other function, meaning, or subjectivity inherent in schools. On the contrary, the quantitatively driven strategies impact the schools qualitatively in terms of schooling.

Equal-sized classrooms double-loaded along a corridor, which very much defines the school buildings around the world, is where, the physical and economic constraints culminate, restating the school architecture with little modifications since the onset of modernity. Becoming an archetype of school buildings, the variations in schools are restricted to classroom and corridor forms. In each of its variations, however, corridor and classroom typology restates a single pedagogy, equal-sized student groups organised by grade, age, and subject, and taught within the classroom. Moreover, the continuous optimisation of the sizes of the corridor and classroom in terms of financial constraints, limit the classroom conducts to frontal teaching, and reduces the corridor space, which potentially is a shared social space, to only circulation.

The dissertation framed the spatial elements of this typology - classrooms, corridors, and the partition walls â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and analysed each of them in relation to different pedagogies and social ideals in history in order to make explicit their roles in response to pedagogies, and at the same time to make explicit the spatial and pedagogical symptoms of the financial and physical restrictions demanded by the administrators, politicians, and financiers. As discussed, the changes in the forms and programmes of the classrooms and corridors do not create notable changes in the ways the social ambitions of schools, centred around a sense of community, are interpreted. Premised upon the understanding that the pedagogies are materialised through separations, connections, proximities, and densities in schools, partitioning of spaces and the formation of clusters offer a potential architectural strategy through which different formal protocols of teaching and learning can coexist while retaining their specificities and allowing a sense of community without isolating any groups of students. It also offers a possibility of not only being related to new buildings, but as a possibility to affect the existing school building stock. Hence, the dissertation developed, firstly, a series of classroom clusters, not as autonomous rooms, but as larger clusters that are composed of smaller rooms that connect to each other, where their connections to the other rooms of the school, their size, and their form register the differences of teaching and learning methods. By doing so, the design of the clusters opens a discussion by redefining the quantities such

112

Conclusion

as floor areas, ceiling heights, openings, and more importantly, different forms of classrooms through different methods of teaching and learning.

Moreover, the design proposals contribute to, and open up the ways to think the spatial significance of schools in terms of pedagogy. Recent literature also identifies the gaps between the innovation in school design and the pedagogical methods, where the latter is not yet translated to new spatial terms. Research on this topic can benefit from the partitioning of spaces and creating clusters as a strategy in translating these new pedagogies to architectural terms. Indeed, the design proposals, whose clusters where frontal teaching and other forms of static studies, and group studies and different forms of kinetic learning activities, and their relation to each respond to some of the recent forms of learning and teaching methods.

Following the architecture and the city scales that the historical analysis identified, these units are investigated through two design briefs for London, in two different building typologies, an atrium block, and a slab block. While the two provide similar possibilities in forming the classroom clusters, they also make visible the potentials that the building morphologies add to the quality of the school. While the slab block provides a more efficient setting in terms of the disposition of clusters, the atrium multiplies the relationships the different classrooms have and extends the connections to the building scale.

The school is characterised by its complete isolation from the public as protected buildings and open areas. Through this separation, the schools lose their inherent possibility to organise their surroundings as centres, and at the same time results in physical limitations of land and financial availability. While the development in the for the atrium block is proposed together with the construction of new housing blocks to financially support the construction of the school, the linear block is proposed together with rentable floor areas for retail and offices. While the former addresses to the initial cost of the school, the latter addresses the maintenance costs of a school. Consequently, the design briefs challenge the central planning of schools and suggest that the urban models and the economic models for the schools should be defined in relation to their urban context and the community that surrounds them. Two designs propose to think the new schools as hubs, which connect primarily the existing schools around them, and the other educational, cultural, and public facilities. By doing so, they define the communities of these new schools together with the schools around them in relation to a neighbourhood community.

113

Conclusion

The design proposals allow the reimagination of schools and the reflection on the pedagogical consequences of school spaces. The design proposals offer to reformulate the school as a place where differences in learning and teaching are registered and made explicit spatially that is able to create school communities not based on the sameness, but on diversity. They also, reflect on the formulation of this school community within larger contexts.

As a result, the dissertation focusing on the architectural implications of policies and regulations, suggests a reformulation of them on a thorough basis of pedagogy both in architectural and urban scales.

114

Primary Sources

Donzelot, Jacques. The Policing of Families. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979.

“Baseline Designs for Schools - GOV.UK”. Gov.Uk, 2014. https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/psbp-baseline-designs.

Doxiadis Associates, “THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KORANGI AREA”, Ekistics 8, no. 47 (1959). pp.207-35.

Building Centre Trust. SCSD (School Construction Systems Development): Development Of System Building Components

By Performance Specifications In The USA. Building Centre Intelligence Reports. London: Building Centre Trust, 1970.

Doxiadis Associates, “Primary School Programme, East Pakistan” Ekistics 16, no. 94 (1963): pp.184-87. The full document is found: New Schools for East Pakistan, Reel 1383, Ford Foundation Grants Government of West Pakistan (05800186), Ford Foundation records, Grants E-G, Rockefeller Archive Center.

Biesta, Gert J.J. Good Education In An Age Of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. 1st ed. Oxon: Routledge, n.d.

Boice, John R. A History And Evaluation Of The School Construction Systems Development Project, 1961-1967. 1st ed. Menlo Park, California: Building Systems Information Clearinghouse, Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1971.

Canguilhem, Georges. The Normal and The Pathological. 1st ed.

New York: Zone Books, 2007.

“Crow Island Revisited”. Architectural Forum, 1955.

Department of Education and Science Architects and Building Branch. USA Visit. 1st ed. London: The Department of Education and Science, 1970.

Department for Education Education Funding Agency. Building Bulletin 103: Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools, 2014.

Department for Education. Advice on Standards for School Premises For Local Authorities, Proprietors, School Leaders, School Staff And Governing Bodies, 2015.

Doxiadis Associates, ‘‘School Building Programmes’, DA Review, v.8, no.81, July 1972, unpaginated. Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Foundation.

Doxiadis Associates, ‘‘Korangi Project”, DA Newsletter, vol.2, no.10, October 1962, unpaginated. Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Foundation.

Doxiadis Associates, “Korangi Schools”, DA Monthly Bulletin, no.70, September 1964, unpaginated. Constantinos and Emma Doxiadis Foundation.

Evans, Robin. The Projective Cast. 1st ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.

Evans, Robin, “Figures, Doors and Passages,” Architectural Design 48, no. 4 (1978): 267-278.

The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. The Stationery Office, 1999.

Educational Facilities Laboratories. SCSD: The Project and The

117

Schools. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1967.

(Summer 2010): 728-770.

Educational Facilities Laboratories. SCSD: An Interim Report.

New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1965.

Smithson”. Architectural Review, 1954.

Educational Facilities Labs, Inc. New Schools for New Education: A Report from Ann Arbor. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1960.

Review 38, no. (1990): 103-131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990. tb03350.x.

Educational Facilities Labs, Inc. Schools without Walls. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1966.

Materiality and Modern Culture, 10-21. P.M. Graves-Brown, 1st ed.

London: Routledge, 1991.

Evans, Clinchy. Profiles of Significant Schools: Hillsdale High School, San Mateo, California. 1st ed. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1960.

Meyer, Hannes. “Building”. In Programs and Manifestoes On 20ThCentury Architecture, 117-120. Ulrich Conrads, 1st ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1971.

Evans, Clinchy. Schools for Team Teaching. 1st ed. New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1961.

Meyer, Hannes, and Hans Wittwer. „Die Petersschule Basel“. Bauhaus: Zeitschrift Für Bau Und Gestaltung, 1928.

The Federal Capital: A Preliminary Report, Reel 0652, Ford Foundation Grants - A to B, Athens Technological Organization (06000216), Ford Foundation records, Grants A-B, Rockefeller Archive Center.

Meyer, Hannes, and Hans Wittwer, Erläuterung zum Schulhaus von Heute, 1926.

Ferrer, Terry. The Schools and Urban Renewal: A Case Study from New Haven. New York: New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1962.

Fielding, Michael, and Peter Moss. Radical Education and The Common School: A Democratic Alternative. 1st ed. Oxon: Routledge, 2010.

The Ford Foundation, Report of The Trustees of The Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation, 1950.

Foucault, Michel. “The Confession of The Flesh”. In Power/ Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 194-228.

Colin Gordon, 1st ed. New York, N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1980.

“Gateway School”, Progressive Architecture, 1967, p.150.

“Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium In Luenen”, Bauwelt, (1960), pp.1072-1083.

Gross, Ronald, and Judith Murphy, Educational Change and Architectural Consequences.: A Report on Facilities for Individualized Instruction. New York: New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1968.

Hertzberger, Herman, and Abram de Swaan. Alle Scholen / The Schools Of Herman Hertzberger. 1st ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2009.

Hudnut, Joseph. “Crow Island School, Winnetka, Ill.”.

Architectural Forum, 1941.

Jarzombek, Mark, “Corridor Spaces,” Critical Inquiry 36, no. 4

Johnson, Philip. “School at Hunstanton, Norfolk, By Alison And Peter Latour, Bruno. “Technology Is Society Made Durable”. The Sociological

Latour, Bruno. “The Berlin Key or How to Do Things with Words”. In

Ministry of Education, Building Bulletin 18 Schools in the USA: A Report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1961.

Molloy, Larry. Community / School: Sharing the Space and The Action.

New York, N.Y.: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1973.

The School Premises (England) Regulations 2012. The Stationery Office, 2017.

The School Board for London. Final Report of The School Board For London 1870-1904. London: P.S King and Son, 1904.

Stanford University School Planning Laboratory. British Prefabricated School Construction. 1st ed. Palo Alto, California: School Planning Laboratory, Stanford University, 1962.

“Three Schools Boldly Adapt to Different New Teaching Methods Being Tried Across The Nation”. Architectural Record, 1968.

Trump, J. Lloyd, and Dorsey Baynham. Focus on Change. 1st ed.

Chicago: Rand McNally, 1961.

Trump, J. Lloyd. Images of The Future: A New Approach to The Secondary School. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: Commission on the Experimental Study of the Utilization of the Staff in the Secondary School, National Education Association, 1959.

Secondary Sources Banham, Reyner. “A Home Is Not a House”. Art in America, 1965.

Barrett, Peter, Yufan Zhang, Fay Davies, and Lucinda Barrett. Clever Classrooms: Holistic Evidence and Design Project. Salford: University of Salford, 2015.

118

Blom, A.V. , “Richtlinien Für Die Herstellung Von RostschutzAnstrichen”, Schweizerische Bauzeitung 8990, no. 14 (1927): 183-185.

Constantinos A. Doxiadis, Ekistics: An Introduction to The Science of Human Settlements, 1st edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Constantinos A. Doxiadis, Action for Human Settlements, 1st edn.

New York: Norton,1976.

Dewey, John. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmilan,1916. Écochard, Michel. Problems of Refugees in Karachi. Report Number 1 and 2. Unpublished, 1953.

George F. Gant, ‘The Ford Foundation Program in Pakistan’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 323 (1959), pp. 150-159.

Magat, Richard, The Ford Foundation At Work, Philanthropic Choices, Methods, And Styles New York: Plenum Press, 1979.

House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. Sustainable Schools: Are We Building Schools for The Future? London: The Stationery Office, 2007.

Ingold, Tim. “Tools, Minds and Machines: An Excursion in The Philosophy of Technology”. In the Perception of The Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, 294-311. Tim Ingold, 1st ed.

London and New York: Routledge, 2000.

Pelkonen, E.., Kevin Roche: Architecture as Environment (New Haven and London: Yale University Press) 2011 „Petersschule In Basel, Geplant 1926, Erbaut 1928/29“. Das Werk: Architektur Und Kunst = L‘oeuvre : Architecture Et Art 16, no. 11 (1929): 325.

Royal Institute of British Architects. Better Spaces for Learning.

London: Royal Institute of British Architects, 2016.

“School Buildings Scheme Scrapped - BBC News”. BBC News, 2017. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10514113.

“School Of Skylights: Hillsdale Has Windowless Classrooms”. Life Magazine, 1957.

Siegert, Bernhard. Doors: On the Materiality of the Symbolic,” trans.

John Durham Peters, Grey Room 47 (Spring 2012): 6-23; Simmel, Georg. “Bridge and Door,” trans. Mark Ritter, Theory, Culture & Society 11, no. 5 (February 1994): 5-10.

Sloterdijk, Peter. Foams, Spheres Volume III: Plural Spherology, 1st ed. (South Pasadena: Semiotext(e), 2016).

Steiner, Rudolf. Waldorf Education And Anthroposophy, 1st ed.

(Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1995).

Sviridoff, Mitchell. The Ford Foundation and National Affairs, 1st edn. New York, N.Y.: Ford Foundation,1971.

Sviridoff, Mitchell and Franklin Thomas, Inventing Community Renewal, 1st edn. New York: New School University, Milano Graduate School, 2004.

Teyssot, Georges. A Topology of Everyday Constellations.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013.

Wittwer, Hans Jakob. „Überlegungen Zur Petersschule In Basel“.

In Hannes Meyer 1889-1954: Architekt Urbanist Lehrer, 80.

Bauhaus-Archiv, Berlin and Deutsches Architekturmuseum, Frankfurt am Main, 1st ed. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn Verlag, 1989.