Lessons Learned: A Symposium on School Design
LAUSD / USC School of Architecture / J . PAUL GETTY Trust

Session: 1C - Neighborhood and Campus Context

Scribe: Janek Tabencki Dombrowa

Attendees:
Charles Lagreco
Leonard Marmol
Helena Jubany
Robert Mangurian
----------, Gensler
Fernando Juarez
Tom Blurock
John Dale
---------, Ac Martin
Kate Diamond
Chet Widom
Craig Hodgetts

Key Issues:
· Role of LAUSD project managers in architect/community interface
· Access to LAUSD project managers by selected project architects
· Continuity of LAUSD project managers
· Response to community concerns: balance between what is given to community and community needs
· Need for architects' participation much earlier in the process
· Need for architects to be part of site selection and evaluation process
· Architects' participation in community meetings - real vs. token.
· Low rise context sites -- residential context with related concerns and dissatisfaction resulting from resident displacement
· High rise context sites -- commercial context and scale of school facilities vis-à-vis existing buildings
· Industrial sites - little or no community opposition
· Community participation in development of site solutions
· School security
· Rigidity of building program inhibits wise community and context response
· Building massing and scale
· Building materials as response to community context and concerns for durability
· Minority architect participation in the district building program
· Joint efforts with public agencies - DWP, and city departments - Parks and Recreation
· LAUSD compressed time frame of building program mandate - 158 potentially related agencies, stream lining efforts by K. Littman's office
· Time frame conflicts between community and architects' need to effectively develop program/site relationships and LAUSD immediate need for classroom space
· Architects' participation in post construction building occupancy and use

Goals:
· Community Participation
· Site Specific Program Redefinition by Community
· Site Specific Program Refinement by Architects
· Open and flexible dialogue with LAUSD and Community
· Community Meetings for feed back and genuine building program involvement
· School as Center of Community
· School Safety
· Extended Use and Joint Use of all neighborhood facilities where ever possible
· Maximum effectiveness of invested dollars
· Avoidance of facility redundancy

Constraints and Problems:
This session focused on the role of the architect as participant and contributor in community planning for the new school facilities. The overriding frustration and concern was the repeated disconnect between the goals of the building program and the reality of the de-facto process. The nonparticipation of architects in site selection and the token scope of community meetings were heightened by the perceived inflexibility and inaccessibility of LAUSD project managers. Shortcomings and inefficiencies of LAUSD project manager process must be addressed. The difficulty of the LAUSD position stems from the desire to provide meaningful participation of neighborhood and community while faced with the compressed time frame of the building program required to address exacerbated facility shortages

Substantial changes in these key areas are critical to meaningful building site selection, to effective use of resources, to a successful building programming allowing for joint extended use of facilities and ultimately to a real response to community needs and aspirations.

There is a real opportunity for generating enlightened guidelines derived from the current building program experiences. The guidelines should be flexible and strategic - inflexibility and inconsistency in value judgments are a recurring theme of the present process. Increased anticipatory planning and involvement of architects in the process of site evaluation must occur in communication with community groups. While commissions are experienced in understanding neighborhood concerns and in reconciliation of conflicting pressures, consider their exclusion from the process. Planning commissions can be approached and involved as advisory rather than ruling bodies.
Building sites and surrounding neighborhoods are as diverse as the texture of the city fabric. There is a great opportunity to enrich traditional accommodation of school activities through extended use planning, partnering, and consequent creative funding. A wide range of facility needs exist in environments where many resources are available; however, an umbrella policy would prescribe a process for developing a thorough understanding and potential integration of the specific outreach and cooperation opportunities with all the available programs.

Neighborhood safety can be enhanced through an integrated planning process. Joint and extended use of facilities imparts increased awareness of surroundings, generates familiarity between participants, weaves together relationships between adults and children and reduces alienation, frustration and venting through violence.

1.Meaningful Neighborhood Involvement:
The process should allow architects to participate in the pre-site selection and pre- programming sessions with the neighborhood and participating community. Architects are trained to integrate diverse context and programming issues and want and need the opportunity to reconcile and balance these concerns in a context of community participation. The Glendale School District was mentioned as an example where community participation is shaping the school environment. Given the time, communities buy into the process and enrich it. Joint facility use in the Glendale school development process allowed for a maximizing of resources. The resulting community commitment and involvement has lasted through city administration changes, long term fund-raising, and holds a high promise of success. LAUSD time constraints limit the available time, however, many expressed hope that if there is a will on the part of LAUSD there will be a way.

2. Participation by DAC:
The role of the DAC is critical to flexibility and having the possibility of appeal of project manager decisions. It allows for reassessment of broad goals and maintains a corrective methodology in a complex process.

3. Courtyard Site Organization:
The recurring building site organization strategy is the courtyard and the village. This formulation allows for creation of physical and metaphorical center, permits reasonable responses to high security concerns, can be arranged for extended use of facility components and allows varied responses to issues of scale and materiality.

4. Post Construction and Post Occupancy Participation by Architects:
Frequently following construction with the start up of new buildings there are arrays of questions regarding the use of the new facilities. Architects should be participants and remain with their buildings to address questions, offer suggestions, explain intent and generally assist in the most effective occupancy of the new facilities. This can be done at a very small cost relative to the cost of the learning curve of the new participants. Further, architects can provide additional guidance in making the small adjustments often required following construction. An architect assigned to a project from its inception knows the programming intentions, the construction of the buildings and is best suited to advise in the most effective long-term evolution of the facilities. Many school parents who are architects by profession participate in advisory capacities in private schools. A greater participatory role of architects in LAUSD facilities will result in heightened effectiveness and longevity of new facilities.

Examples:
Several project conditions were discussed to invoke the experiences architects encountered in the neighborhood and community response to the pre-construction debate, the role of context scale, sun orientation, urban fabric texture and materiality of the existing and proposed fabric.

1. Projects set in low scale residential neighborhoods. Residential displacement frequently creates apprehension and frustration. Instances of reduced opposition cooperative response was due to the perception of the relocated residents as contributors in the enrichment of their communities. The creation of new school sites is strongly affected by how these families are treated in the process, viewed by the community at large, and how they see their role in the enrichment of the neighborhood. New buildings proposed for these sites were low scale and used material palettes compatible to the adjoining housing.
2. Facilities located in high-density commercial zones. These projects tend to create less opposition. Often participating parents were very supportive and encouraged by the prospect of the planned facilities. Challenges included issues of building scale, blocked solar access and the nature of materials common in large-scale buildings. The response included ways to maintain building scale comfortable for children but compatible with the size of adjoining buildings; increased focus on massing which would allow maximum penetration by the sun into outdoor spaces; building organization to create internal sense of community; and, innovative use of materials to bridge scale and texture.
3. Buildings proposed and located in industrial areas. The disconnection of the new facilities from the residential neighborhoods was a concern.
4. The crossing of transportation arteries is a fundamental component in the planning of these sites. The surrounding material typologies are also foreign to LAUSD buildings. These sites require flexibility on the part of LAUSD project managers in the materials and finishes palette and creativity on the part of designers.

Recommendations:
Each site is an integral part of the community. Productive meetings with the community and planning bodies are crucial, with all participants aware of the importance of maintaining flexibility.

The issue of the best role of the planning committees and its participation in the processes should be addressed.

LAUSD has approximately 149 agencies to involve and consult - Kathi Littman's office is streamlining processes currently in place and attempts to address all constituencies.

Architects, however, feel strongly the current process is incomplete and not fully effective. Substantial amount of discussion addressed experiences architects had with lack of meaningful community involvement. Architects participation in site selection with community groups and organization is key to effective site planning. This is not necessarily very costly but can lead to joint use of existing and non-LAUSD facilities; for example, Department of Parks and Recreation open space, existing and proposed community libraries, etc.

Further, additional contact with LAUSD strategic planners, i.e. Jackie Barham, was seen as highly critical. Jackie's and her immediate staff participation was seen as helpful, but her time and involvement too limited.

Greater flexibility and understanding of the "big picture" by project managers is essential to successful programming of buildings and use of available budgets. The directives from project managers changed when new managers were assigned to a project. There was very little room for discussion or negotiation. The managers' decisions were inflexible and often focused on narrow yet inconsistent guidelines.

The role of the budgets was seen as unrealistic vis-à-vis the planned goals. A strategy should be established to allow for some flexibility in allocation and pursuit of other funding sources wherever available. For example, if energy partnerships could be created with DWP to reduce life-cycle energy costs, money should be invested in solar collection systems with benefits for both parties. An investment in planning shared use of facilities with community centers, community libraries, neighborhood athletic programs, etc., can lead to additional partnerships benefiting the budgets of all entities and greater neighborhood integration. Integration of community programs and supporting facilities generates increased participation by all organizations and that of parents in the lives of their children, increases pride and care for facilities, improves community security and often quality of life.

An insightful balancing of resources, innovation in programming, creative strategic planning and design solutions and thoughtful post-construction use of the new facilities has the greatest potential of reaching the goals of BETTER SCHOOLS, BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS.

LAUSD Comments and Clarifications: