Rationale, Poblem and Thesis

According to Jason Mclennan, author of Philosophy of Sustainable Design,
“Sustainable design endeavors to create the healthiest, most nourishing places possible for people without diminishing the ability of nature to provide nourishing places for the rest of creation and our own species in the future… sustainable design aligns itself with the humanist architectural traditions that seeks to create great places for people, and in this sense can be seen as a natural extension of what should just be considered good design… The philosophy of sustainable design is wholeheartedly about respecting the unique needs of people. It is about honoring diversity in individuals and giving control back to people for their environments and personal comfort.”

The Problem:

The following paper will provide a starting point from which to begin conceptual design work by discussing the current problems with modular classrooms today. Modular classrooms, “portables”, or “bungalows” as they’re often referred to have heating and cooling problems, not enough ventilation, low levels of day light making these buildings inefficient energy consumers during our local and state wide recession. They also have noise issues, and most often adopt permanence at the site they land on.

Framework: Principles of Sustainable Design

Principles of Sustainable design can provide a framework for understanding the current problems with modular classrooms today. Sustainable design will be defined and discussed through principles set forth by Mclennan.

1.Respect for natural Systems/ Biomimicry
2.Respect for People/ The Human Vitality principle
3.Respect for Place/ The Ecosystem/Bio-region Principle
4.Respect for Cycle of Life/ 7 generations principle
5. Respect for Energy and Natural Resources/ Conservation and
6. Renewable Resources Principle
7. Respect for Process/ Holistic Thinking Principle

Our discussion of the problem regarding portable classroom focuses on Principle one, two and three. I’m choosing to focus on #2 for this paper, the human vitality principle for various reasons. First, the human vitality principle according to Mclennan honors the notion that the whole point of designing and constructing buildings in the first place is to create habitat for people.” (Mclennan). Accordingly, Our human habitat comes first, not cars or planes, freeways, ocean vessels, or malls or anything indirectly tied to our lives. Sadly, our built environment often convinces us of the opposite. In Mclennan’s discussion on the human vitality principle, he references North America’s twentieth century architectural history: “It seems that along the way we have instead created habitat for automobiles and the other things in our lives, and it is coincidental if our buildings and communities also happen to work for us as well. Mclennan is surely speaking about the poorly designed infrastructure and architecture that in many ways has failed us. Mclennan makes a ultra realistic statement---one that almost everyone when he/she truly thinks about can agree in reference to our schools: “We create schools that make the act of learning more challenging than the ideas being taught within them”. To a large degree, I personally agree but for the sake of a common argument and efforts towards improvement, we’ll focus on the problem at hand regarding modular classrooms. So, why are our modular school buildings make it hard to learn in?


One Size Doesn't fit All: on Portable Classrooms

The modular classroom of today’s Southern California school districts subscribe to a one size fits all mentality. This is a falsely homogenizing reflection of our diverse Southern Californian ethnic makeup and worse, they’re noisy or noise intolerant, too hot or too cold, energy inefficient spaces that are simply uncomfortable and impersonal.

Whether its elementary, middle or high school, science, math, english, or administrative classrooms; coastal, desert or mountain regions; urban, suburban or rural areas, the typical modular classroom in southern California ignores diversity and denies the unique needs of people. And while they have an inherently general design that attempts to fit all levels and subjects, this design grossly denies the unique qualities of location, users and uses as well as the economical and historical context that we live in. The generic “one size fits all” design places denies the unique needs of people and ignores diversity.

About 90% of the time, we rely on active or automatic systems to control our interior environment, even in a modular building. This effectively denies natural systems and often introduces harmful contaminants to our interior air quality. In modular classrooms, automatic heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems or HVAC systems often fall short or do not meet comfortable temperature levels, making it too cold or too hot or what many call “stuffy”. Reliance on active systems for ventilation alone such as air conditioners, heaters and multiple fans often introduces contaminants such as dust and the things that dust particles carry: allergens, mould spores and viruses. We are classically conditioned by our society to perceive certain toxic fumes as positive things, for example: “new car smell”, “new carpet smell”. Often, we ignore a mouldy air conditioner smell because of the pleasant cooling effect---we may think ‘that’s what cooling experiences feel and smell like’. Over time, a person’s repeated exposure to harmful chemicals, toxic emissions mould spores and other damaging particles that are breathed in can cause nausea, chronic headaches, irritable mood and other worse type conditions and disorders. These toxins can contribute to what is commonly referred to as “sick building” syndrome, a condition that in many ways describes what is happening with modular school classrooms throughout Southern California and perhaps the country as well.

In a sick building, work efficiency is reduced due to poor interior air quality and the lack of natural light. In most modular classrooms I teach in as a visiting teacher, I experience insufficient natural lighting. Ine its worst case, a modular building has two windows oriented on its most narrow sides. Therefore, close to 90% of its lighting is artificial lighting which translates to higher energy costs. Did we forget sunlight is free? Well sort of free considering property mortgages and taxes we pay to have such natural light. Yet, we are not harnessing it. Equally expensive is the HVAC system which is either constantly on or in need of a repair exposing the users to a variety of harmful atmospheric particles as previously mentioned incluing dust, allergens, mould spores and viruses.

Other problems with a modular classroom building include noise pollution. Due to economy, the typical structural system is of wood light framing or aluminum stud. Cheap plywood subfloors in addition to the hollow foundation make foot traffic noisy. Large aluminum A.D.A. ramps maginify foot traffic making a 30 person classroom of elementary students sound like an herd of elephants stampeding in a thunder storm, and all at close range to other classrooms in session. Lack of sufficient noise insulation in the prefabricated walls do not resist noise interruptions from inclement weather, bouncing balls or benevolent social gatherings in or around the building.

Portables become Permanent as they are not made for adaptable space planning. Moveing them is difficult to nearly impossible after they touch down. However close they are positioned to eachother, they behave like antisocial individuals placed side by side----operating by their individual agendas, ignoring one another while operating by expensive individual HVAC systems---acting more like islands on asphalt.

In short, the typical “one size fits all” design approach to modular school buildings are noisy or noise intolerant, they are impersonal as they are not designed to take on adaptable characteristics for the subjects they will be used for or change, not easily moved and don’t share mechanical systems when placed only feet from eachother. The current buildings themselves fail to recognize our current time and place as they are energy inefficient thus relying on active mechanical systems increasing the likelihood of “sick building syndrome” to its users while drawing up the cost for operation to an already struggling state wide educational system.


Design Prompt

Today, its obvious we need to reevaluate our approach to relocatable/modular classrooms in order to respect the unique needs of people; but what is less obvious is our need to honor diversity in individuals and give control back to people for their environments and personal comfort. So, how might the module be designed in response to the existing problems at hand? What will the contemporary modular classroom look like? With the help of students themselves, architects and designers are re-imagining the modular classroom experience. In order for us to begin, lets first establish our goals and the strategies that will lead us to a responsive design.


Thesis:

Our approach is to create a contemporary classroom module that honors diversity by adapting and modifying a structural kit of parts to a particular location, user, and academic subject.

Procedure:

Our design module will maximimze green construction techniques, materials, components, as well as utilizes local construction companies and building professionals. Adaptable curriculum features (accessories of sort) will be accounted that will contribute to an optimal learning environment where classroom functions support and encourage a specific relationship between a teacher and student/s. The result will be a uniquely supportive and eco-effective learning space.