1 / 44

Prototypes: To Use Or Not To Use, That Is The Question

Prototypes: To Use Or Not To Use, That Is The Question. What is a Prototype?. Prototypes are also referred to as: Stock Plans Clone Plans Model School Design Plans. What is a Prototype?

coen
Download Presentation

Prototypes: To Use Or Not To Use, That Is The Question

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prototypes: To Use Or Not To Use, That Is The Question

  2. What is a Prototype?

  3. Prototypes are also referred to as: • Stock Plans • Clone Plans • Model School Design Plans

  4. What is a Prototype? Prototype school plans are construction documents that have been used to construct more than 1 school with only minor modifications required for the second and subsequent schools.

  5. HMFH Architects, Inc. Haverhill. MA

  6. Not to be confused with…

  7. A “Kit of Parts” school that uses prototypical component parts that can be shifted in relationship to one another depending on differing site constraints.

  8. HMFH Architects, Inc. Lowell, MA

  9. Other variations…

  10. Systems Approach Used in Boston, California and Toronto In the ’60s. Standard criteria were established for structural systems, HVAC, partitions and ceiling systems.

  11. Systems Approach The goal was to buy in bulk and use the most appropriate and efficient technology while avoiding the repetition of standardized plans.

  12. Systems Approach BOSTCO system included structural based on 5’ module. Ceiling was a 5’ coffered grid system incorporating lighting and supply diffusers. De-mountable partitions located on grid.

  13. Systems Approach Public bid laws limited the expected savings from standardized specifications. The high level of flexibility was not utilized to the extent anticipated.

  14. Other variations… The Clearing House

  15. From designshare.com Hackberry Elementary School, Frisco Texas

  16. A Clearinghouse of Designs California: planupload.dgs.ca.gov/caschoolshome.asp North Carolina: schoolclearinghouse.com Pennsylvania: sdcpublic.ed.stage.pa.us/PublishScreens/wfSDCHome.aspx Florida: SMART Schools Design Directory

  17. Why Prototypes?

  18. Accommodate high rates of growth • Assure consistent, high quality product • Assure equity • Promote operational efficiency • Save money, Save time!

  19. On its face, the potential of reducing engineering and design costs by developing a series of standard building plans… seems so intuitive that it is difficult for lay people to understand why we have not considered this solution before. Arkansas Public Relations Committee, 2004

  20. Boston Globe 2/3/03 Massachusetts Attorney General says that use of prototypes will lower design costs, reduce occurrence of poorly designed schools, lead to quicker reviews and ensure new schools meet state standards and technology requirements saving tens of millions of dollars.

  21. Can the dream be achieved?

  22. Reviewed 7 prior State Departments of Education Studies: Washington 1960 California 1970 California 1972 Georgia 1991 Oregon 2000 Virginia 2002 Arkansas 2004

  23. It is evident that the interest of the school building program in the State of Washington can best be served by the continued encouragement of original design and the use of new and varied materials. Such an approach has served well in the past and proves again the American tradition of competitive and free enterprise. Washington Bd. Of Education, 1960

  24. Because of the huge building program in California the Legislature has studied various possible economics in construction. The idea of stock plans has been explored and the preponderance of of available facts and opinions has prompted us to reject stock plans as neither sound nor economical. Gibson& Eatough, 1970

  25. …the feasibility of using this approach as a means of reducing costs or shortening the time required for design and construction of new schools does not appear to be practical nor economical over a period of time. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal to develop and use standard plans …be rejected. Georgia Department of Education,1991

  26. …the preponderance of evidence would indicate there would not be any overall savings realized. Virginia Department of Education, 2002

  27. States Concerns: A large number designs for varying grade configurations Plans become obsolete without constant updating Eliminates competitive bidding of materials and systems Large staff required to update and modify plans and specs Orientation and site benefits may not be optimized Eliminates local participation and input Loss of individuality, identity and potential for creativity Does not readily accommodate programmatic differences

  28. …prototype designs make sense within a local system when building multiple buildings of the same type in a short time frame. Governor's Education Reform Study Commission, Georgia 2002

  29. Success Stories: New York City Kit of Parts Over 20 completed Mitchell Giurgola, AIA

  30. Success Stories: Philadelphia Little School House Kit of Parts 12 constructed Vitetta Architects

  31. Success Stories: Clark County, Nevada 68 schools constructed 1998 - 2003 “Use of prototype schools saves approximately 1 year in overall schedule and results in a cost savings of 5-10%.” Dale Scheideman, Director of New Schools and Facility Planning, 2003 “Prototype school design process allows refinement of the design from lessons learned which has resulted in fewer change orders. Change orders are less than 1/2 %.” Rory D. Lorenzo, Acting Director, 2006

  32. Success Stories: Orange County, Florida 51 elementary schools constructed 1998 – 2007 2 prototypes Large internal staff constantly upgrading and being improved for greater program flexibility, for durability, and to improve maintenance. No comparison data on costs versus traditional, unique design approach. Steve J. Gertel RA, Director, New and Replaceable Schools

  33. Success Stories: Loundon County, Virginia From 1992 – 2011 population growth from 20,000 to 67,000 3-5 new schools per year Fees reduced from 1/3 to ½ Change Orders less than 1% Constant review to identify areas for improvement Operating efficiencies realized through consistent specifications

  34. Success Stories: Haverhill, Massachusetts 4 schools opened within 5 years Costs of adapting prototypical plans to difficult sites significantly outweighed cost savings from reduced design fees. However equity, a crucial goal, was achieved. The assumption of saving money in design services was critical in building voter support. (T. Fowler Finn, Superintendent of Schools,Haverhill, MA)

  35. Summary: Prototype school design programs are most beneficial when a large number of schools are built within a short time frame within a given district. No successful State-wide programs using prototype plans 25 States have used prototype plans and all 25 have abandoned their use. American Institute of Architects Issue Brief on Stock Plans, 2005 4 States have implemented designclearinghouses. No research on their success yet.

  36. Summary: There is very little hard cost data comparing designing prototype with designing site specific schools. However, we do know that to optimize the use of prototypes: Large, unencumbered sites are beneficial. Strong, stable central control is important. A minimal number of grade level configurations is critical. Local or educational modifications must be minimized.

  37. Summary: Prototypes are not a “quick fix” Careful long term planning and ongoing administration are required. Modifications due to site and environmental concerns, educational concerns, and product and code changes can negate potential cost savings. Community control, participation and resulting community pride can be reduced or eliminated. Institutional appearance can result. Opportunity for creativity and exploration minimized.

  38. Emerging Trends in School Design Design Schools to support a variety of learning styles Enhance learning by integrating technology Foster a small school culture Support neighborhood schools Create schools as centers of community Engage the public in the planning process Make healthy comfortable and flexible learning spaces Consider non-traditional options for school facilities and classrooms. AAF National Summit on School Design, 2005

  39. Emerging Trends in School Design We have moved beyond the one size fits all approach to school design to an age of greater innovation and flexibility tailored to meet the needs of individual students, schools and communities. Ron Bogel President of American Architectural Foundation, Report on the National Summit of School Design, 2005

  40. An Alternative: Medford, MA

  41. HMFH Architects, Inc. Medford, MA

  42. Is There A Prototype In Your Future?

More Related